Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Åsa Petersén, Professor of Neuroscience, Lund University

A company called uniQure has announced promising results from a trial of a new gene therapy for Huntington’s disease. The news has spread quickly through families affected by this condition, who have been desperately waiting for a treatment that can stop or slow down this devastating illness.

Huntington’s disease is a fatal brain disorder that runs in families, caused by a faulty gene that produces a protein called huntingtin. The disease typically begins to cause symptoms in people between 30 and 50 years old.

People with the condition experience problems with movement, thinking abilities and mental health. The disease gets worse over time and typically leads to death about 20 years after symptoms first appear.

In this study, neurosurgeons delivered the treatment called AMT-130 directly into the brain using precise surgery guided by MRI scans. They targeted the striatum – the brain region most damaged by Huntington’s disease.

The treatment requires a single injection delivered during a complex 12- to 20-hour brain operation, which means it will probably be expensive.

AMT-130 uses a modified virus to carry genetic material that can reduce the amount of harmful huntingtin protein in brain cells. Scientists believe this faulty protein plays a key role in causing the disease.

The results showed that patients who received the high dose of AMT-130 (12 people) experienced significant benefits. The treatment appeared to slow disease progression by 75% over 36 months, compared with a carefully matched group of patients who didn’t receive the therapy and were from another study that investigates how the disease develops over time.

Disease progression was measured using a standard scale that tracks movement problems and thinking abilities in Huntington’s disease patients.

The high-dose treatment also showed benefits on another scale that measures how well people can carry out daily activities. Additionally, levels of neurofilament – a substance that indicates brain cell damage – decreased in patients’ spinal fluid after 36 months.

Crucially, the treatment appeared to be safe, and patients tolerated it well. UniQure plans to apply for approval from US regulators in early 2026.

There is an urgent need for treatments that can change the course of Huntington’s disease. Several clinical trials are currently testing ways to target huntingtin and other factors involved in the disease.

Some previous trials have had to be stopped early because of dangerous side-effects, so it’s particularly encouraging that AMT-130 appears safe.

Results need careful interpretation

However, these positive results need to be viewed with some caution. Only 12 patients received the high dose, which is a small number.

Comparing results to an external control group doesn’t account for the placebo effect – the improvement some patients experience simply from believing they’re receiving treatment. There might also be differences in how symptoms are rated between observational studies and treatment trials.

The company hasn’t yet presented results from more objective measures like brain scans or precise movement tests, and the findings have not been independently reviewed by other scientists.

The results show that this method of delivering gene therapy to the brain appears safe, which strengthens the potential for similar treatments – not only for Huntington’s disease but for other brain conditions.

The positive AMT-130 results have certainly created optimism and raised hope among many families living with Huntington’s disease.

Hope is vital for coping with the daily challenges this condition brings. This study, alongside other research happening worldwide, demonstrates the dedication and hard work of the Huntington’s disease community in their fight for new and effective treatments.

Åsa Petersén is affiliated with European Huntington Disease Network as deputy-chair of the executive committee.

– ref. New hope for Huntington’s families as gene therapy shows remarkable results – https://theconversation.com/new-hope-for-huntingtons-families-as-gene-therapy-shows-remarkable-results-266158

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emily Hammer, PhD Candidate in Theological Ethics, University of St Andrews

Most debates about the depiction of consent in Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight saga, which turns 20 this month, focus on the age gap between Bella Swan and Edward Cullen. For the uninitiated, Edward is an undead vampire who has been frozen at age 17 for 87 years, and falls in love with 17-year-old human schoolgirl Bella.

However, I want to discuss another question – whether Bella can consent to becoming a vampire (a transformation she begs Edward for throughout the series, and is finally granted in the final novel) at all. Philosopher L.A. Paul calls such decisions “transformative experiences” – choices you can’t fully evaluate beforehand because they will permanently change who you are.

The challenge of the choice to become a vampire or not, an example Paul uses in her book, Transformative Experience (2014), is two-part, according to her transformative experience framework. First, you can’t give the experience of becoming a vampire a personal value because you have no comparable experience (such as changing species). This makes it impossible for you to choose rationally as you would in other choices, by, for example, visualising what it might be like or making a pros and cons list.

Unlike being in a love triangle (albeit with a vampire and a werewolf, the plot of the second Twilight novel, New Moon), becoming a vampire is an irreversible event you can’t test or gather data on.

---

This article is part of a mini series marking 20 years since the publication of Stephenie Meyer’s first Twilight novel.

---

Second, given that your preferences will change in ways unknown upon becoming a vampire, you can’t choose which choice – vampire or human – you would prefer. For instance, human Bella enjoys sitting in the sun reading, while her vampire lover looks on from the trees. Vampire Bella might not miss this, however, as she now is consumed by blood-lust.

Consent, or informed consent, a term often associated with sex or medical interventions, considers whether someone is able to agree to something happening to them. A valid consent is one that is informed, voluntary, and capacitous – given by someone who is capable of giving consent.

In Bella’s choice to become a vampire, and in fact most transformative experience choices, capacity and voluntariness are easily established. At 18, Bella has reached the age of majority in Washington state, where she lives, meaning she can make her own autonomous decisions. She does not suffer from any current mental health conditions – her months-long depressive episode in New Moon, from which she has recovered by the time she becomes a vampire, notwithstanding. Her choice is also voluntary. In fact, throughout most of the saga, she is the main person pushing for her vampirism, with Edward and his adopted sister Rosalie being thoroughly opposed.

The issue with consent in transformative experience decisions is with the information. By their very nature, we do not have enough facts to make a rational choice. According to at least one major informed consent framework, this does not satisfy the condition of substantial understanding of “the foreseeable consequences and possible outcomes that might follow as a result of [(not)] performing the action”. The question of whether Bella can consent to becoming a vampire is misleading then.

In fact, all transformative experiences that require a consent transaction are not doing what they purport to be doing, as there is no way to understand what the consequences and possible outcomes will be. The more everyday transactions Paul discusses in her book are: getting a cochlear implant as person who is Deaf from birth, or choosing to have a child. There is a moment of consent, of no return, involved in both of these choices, and as both are transformative experiences, there is a lack of information for you personally making the choice.

Paul’s solution to this is to reframe the question from choosing, say, vampirism or not vampirism, to choosing “revelation” – or not. “If you choose to undergo a transformative experience and its outcomes,” she writes, “you choose the experience for the sake of discovery itself, even if this entails a future that involves stress, suffering, or pain.”

This is exactly what Bella does. She chooses to become a vampire because she wants to be with Edward forever, something she reveals to him at her prom in the epilogue of the first book.

As comes to light at the end of New Moon, she also wants to protect Edward’s family from the Volturi (the vampire government). She accepts that this means leaving her own loved ones behind. She says: “This was always the hardest part […] The people I would lose, the people I would hurt [by becoming a vampire].”

However, as is the nature of transformative experiences, she ends up being wrong about her assessment of losing people. She gains her daughter Renesmee, her werewolf love interest Jacob sticks around and her dad Charlie is still in her life. In short, the outcomes were not as she feared, in part because she had no data to truly make a rational judgment about them.

So, can Bella consent to becoming a vampire? She can’t consent to vampirism in the usual informed consent sense, and as Paul argues, neither can people making other significant choices. But she can consent to revelation, which reframes what a meaningful transformative choice looks like.

---

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.

---

Emily Hammer 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. Consent issues in the Twilight saga extend far beyond Bella and Edward’s age gap – https://theconversation.com/consent-issues-in-the-twilight-saga-extend-far-beyond-bella-and-edwards-age-gap-263760

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Belinda Zakrzewska, Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Birmingham

Peruvians are rightly passionate about food. Their pride in Peruvian cuisine has been fuelled in the past two decades or so by a wave of international culinary awards that has forged sense of belonging and visibility on the world stage. Yet, behind this “gastronationalism” lies a more complex story about inequality and exclusion.

The rise to international prominence of Peruvian cuisine, often referred to as the “gastronomic boom”, started to gather pace in the late 20th century. It was spearheaded by Peruvian chefs who studied or trained abroad and returned to Lima, the capital of Peru, with new culinary ideas.

There is a clear consensus among Peruvians that the pioneer of this movement was Gastón Acurio. He created upscale Peruvian restaurants at a time when Lima’s elite favoured French and Italian restaurants. His efforts extended beyond the kitchen. He published books, was a key figure in organising Mistura (Lima’s first major culinary festival) and co-founded Apega (the society of Peruvian gastronomy). Throughout his endeavours, his message was clear: “Cuisine unites Peruvians in a shared sense of pride and faith in ourselves.”

Acurio’s success inspired a new generation of celebrity chefs, among them chef Virgilio Martínez, owner of Central, and chef Mitsuharu “Micha” Tsumura, owner of Maido. Both restaurants have secured the top spot in the list compiled by industry bible, The World’s 50 Best Restaurants: Central in 2023 and Maido in 2025. This has reinforced Peru’s place on the global culinary map. The South American country has earned the title of the World’s Best Culinary Destination 12 times since 2012 (only missing out in 2020).

Peru’s gastronomic boom offered a powerful unifying narrative in a country whose national identity has been fragmented by class, racial, and ethnic inequalities due to the Spanish colonisation in 1532. Peru’s sense of itself was further shattered by two devastating decades of internal terrorism and economic crisis in the 1980s and 1990s. A recent Ipsos survey has confirmed this, revealing that Peruvian cuisine is the number one reason for national pride, with 48% of Peruvians citing it.

Hard-to-swallow truths

Gastronationalism can easily morph into chauvinism. Last month, Spanish influencer Ibai Llanos organised the “World Breakfast Cup” on his social media platforms, an online voting contest featuring breakfasts from 16 countries including the UK, Japan, Peru and other countries in Latin America. Peru’s pan con chicharrón (fried pork belly and sweet potato sandwich) won the tournament, defeating dishes from Mexico, Ecuador, Chile and Venezuela.

The victory sparked a national celebration and boosted delivery orders of pan con chicharrón. But it also revealed a less savoury side of the competition. Some Peruvians took to the internet to mock rival cuisines, even going as far as to compare Ecuador’s bolón de verde to faeces.

It’s important to note that this gastronationalism – and the high-end cooking which has pushed Peru to the top of the world cuisine charts – occurs in a country where 17.6 million Peruvians (51% of the population) suffer from moderate or severe food insecurity and are unable to access a healthy diet because food costs have risen faster than wages. In a country that is rightly celebrated for its cuisine, which is attracting growing numbers of visitors specifically for its food, 43.7% of children under three suffer from anaemia and 12.1% of children under five suffer from chronic malnutrition.

Many people depend on community soup kitchens. In 2020 it was estimated there were more than 15,000 community kitchens providing for nearly 800,000 people. But there are concerns that all-too-often these community kitchens are unable to cater for the cultural and nutritional needs of Peru’s diverse population, particularly its Indigenous groups.

Peru’s gastronationalism also risks reproducing colonial hierarchies that promoted some people to elite status while, at the same time, marginalising Andean and Amazonian communities. In the food landscape, celebrity chefs from Lima often profit from Indigenous ingredients and techniques without providing fair compensation to the Indigenous communities that have safeguarded them for centuries.

A prime example is the guinea pig, (in Spanish: cuy). This has been a staple protein served and eaten whole in Andean communities for millennia. In the hands of elite restaurateurs, this has been transformed into delicacies such as cuy pekinés (a guinea pig prepared in the style of Peking duck) or as filling for ravioli.

Due to the sort of exorbitant prices charged for these dishes, these communities are excluded from tasting the reinterpreted versions of their own cultural expressions. Thus, celebrity chefs’ endeavours are built on an intricate dynamic of cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation – where a “borrowed” recipe or idea becomes more valuable the further it is taken from its Indigenous origins.

The paradox of Peru’s gastronationalism is that while it promotes a narrative of unity it simultaneously reinforces the divisions it claims to overcome. Celebrating food is not the issue. The issue is allowing that celebration to become an excuse for inaction over food poverty and inequality.

True culinary success will be measured not by more awards. It should be judged on whether the prosperity of the “gastronomic boom” can be extended beyond Lima’s elite restaurants to tackle the foundational inequalities upon which the current system is built.

Belinda Zakrzewska 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. Peru’s gastronomic boom risks excluding the Indigenous people whose food it celebrates – https://theconversation.com/perus-gastronomic-boom-risks-excluding-the-indigenous-people-whose-food-it-celebrates-265896

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kimberley Hardcastle, Assistant Professor in Business & Marketing, Northumbria University, Newcastle

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude are now used by students and teachers at every level of education.

According to a report by Anthropic, the company behind Claude, 39% of student interactions with the AI tool involve creating and improving educational content, such as practice questions, essay drafts and study summaries. A further 34% interactions seek technical explanations or solutions for academic assignments – actively producing student work.

Most responses to this from schools and universities have been to focus on immediate concerns: plagiarism, how assessments are conducted and job displacement. They include teaching AI literacy or developing courses for students on how to use and understand AI tools.

While these are important, what’s being overlooked is how evolving generative AI systems are fundamentally changing our relationship with knowledge itself: how we produce, understand and use knowledge.

This isn’t just about adding new technology to classrooms. It changes how we think about learning and challenges the core ideas behind education. And it risks granting power over how knowledge is created to the tech companies producing generative AI tools.

The bigger shift

Generative AI tools, including ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, can now create content, combine information and even mimic reasoning. As these AI systems are used more in classrooms and lecture theatres, they start to challenge the traditional ways we think about knowledge and learning.

My research focuses on what’s known as AI epistemology. Epistemology is the study of the origins and nature of knowledge. AI epistemology in education means grappling with new questions about how knowledge is produced.

Generative AI can instantly generate seemingly authoritative text on any subject. This forces us to reconsider what constitutes “original thought” versus “assisted thinking”. Traditional skills such as source evaluation, logical reasoning and weighing up evidence, need to be reconsidered when the “source” is a complex AI system trained on huge amounts of data that we can’t fully see or understand.

This represents a profound departure from centuries of education built on human-to-human knowledge transmission. Generative AI doesn’t just change what students learn but fundamentally alters how they come to know anything at all.

Students are increasingly likely to validate ideas by how well generative AI explains them, and increasingly less through their own analysis.

Traditional education relies on learning activities and assessments that align with what teachers want students to be able to do or understand. For example, if the goal is critical thinking, students practice analysing texts and are tested on their analysis skills, not just memorisation, to build deep understanding. But this framework assumes students construct knowledge independently through experience and reflection.

Generative AI fundamentally disrupts this model. Students can produce sophisticated outputs without the cognitive journey traditionally required to create them.

Students are now becoming co-creators of knowledge in a machine-mediated system. Co-creation means these groups work together to produce learning outcomes. But co-destruction occurs when their conflicting goals undermine the educational experience. My research on value co-creation and co-destruction in higher education reveals that students, educators, administrators and technology providers with competing interests are shaping educational value.

For example, students might want efficiency, educators want deep learning, and tech companies want engagement metrics. These tensions can either enhance or erode learning quality. This framework now applies to AI integration. When generative AI helps students genuinely understand concepts, it creates value. When it enables shortcuts that bypass learning, it destroys value. Co-creation in education isn’t new, but generative AI as a co-creator changes everything.

Human thought survival

While often framed as the fourth industrial revolution, the current AI shift is more accurately an intellectual revolution. When we outsource thought unthinkingly to machines, we hand unprecedented power to shape knowledge to the technology companies developing this evolving technology.

Tech companies already turn our online behaviour into profit by collecting data to predict and influence what we do next, but we now face something deeper. If a handful of companies own the primary means of knowledge production, they control how we understand the world. Their algorithms’ biases, training data choices, and commercial incentives will determine what is produced and disseminated.

We’ve been here before. Social media exploits our cognitive vulnerabilities to capture our attention. But this time, the stakes are higher. It’s not just our attention at risk, but our capacity to think independently.

This isn’t about whether traditional education remains relevant. It absolutely does. It’s about educators defining what meaningful learning looks like now it’s accompanied by AI.

Generative AI isn’t just a sophisticated calculator; it changes how we understand knowledge. It’s reshaping how students conceptualise expertise, creativity, and their own cognitive capabilities. This will fundamentally change how young people think and learn.

Educators must ensure pedagogical wisdom, not commercial interests, guides this transformation. Encouragingly, this work has started. Centres for responsible AI, such as the one at my own university, ensure educators are driving these critical conversations rather than simply responding to them.

Kimberley Hardcastle 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 generative AI is really changing education by outsourcing the production of knowledge to big tech – https://theconversation.com/how-generative-ai-is-really-changing-education-by-outsourcing-the-production-of-knowledge-to-big-tech-263160

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Holmes, Lecturer in Criminology & Criminal Justice, Bangor University

The UK’s new digital ID card scheme, announced by Keir Starmer on September 26, has two big questions swirling around it. Is it a solution to illegal immigration? And will it give the government too much power to monitor people?

These questions are likely to dominate discussion and debate for some time. A petition has been posted and civil liberty groups and politicians are already questioning the value of the scheme. But what is the reality?

What is a digital ID card?

Similar to the NHS app and various other existing digital cards, the new scheme will create a universal form of identification stored on mobile phones. When accessing public services, the ID could be used in the same way similar schemes are used across Europe, offering the promise of a more efficient process. Estonia has famously operated a digital ID system since 2002.

One of the aspects of the new scheme that may be overlooked in the forthcoming debate is the benefits this would have in potentially reducing bureaucracy, cost, fraud and waiting times when people are trying to prove they are eligible for certain services. While there are concerns over ID cards from a civil liberties point of view, their use in improving efficiency is something to bear in mind.

---

Read more:
A national digital ID scheme is being proposed. An expert weighs the pros and (many more) cons

---

The other imperative in this scheme is monitoring who has the right to work in the UK. Anyone wanting to work or rent a home in the UK would need one, replacing the current practice of using a variety of documents such as driving licences, national insurance numbers and gas bills.

There is therefore an expectation that this will affect illegal immigration by deterring people who don’t have the right to be in the UK from trying to get jobs. Employers and landlords would need to examine ID cards to confirm the identity of applicants.

Illegal immigration and the shadow economy

Combating the flow of illegal immigrants has been a consistent problem for both the current Labour government and the previous Conservative regime. The appeal of the UK is related in part to the work opportunities available to those who can make it to the country and blend in.

In principle, the current eVisas scheme and the new digital ID card would cut off access to legitimate work for those entering the country illegally – although groups such as Migrants’ Rights Network have questioned the value of the eVisas scheme for those wanting to prove their immigration status.

With the political debate focusing on trying to stop small boat crossings, this may seem like an indirect way to address a problem – but cutting off access to work could have an impact on the appeal of the UK in the first place.

Those trying to stay in the UK undetected would need to work in the shadow economy and live in accommodation that did not check ID. The shadow economy is estimated to be 10.8% of GDP in the UK. Both activities could lead to increased dependency on organised crime groups and human traffickers.

Research suggests technology has been key in reducing crime over the past 20 years. Solutions to fraud have often been focused on improving security around identification processes, such as the introduction of facial recognition technology in passports. Perhaps digital ID cards are the next hi-tech solution needed to address illegal immigration.

Stepping into the future

ID cards have been tried and proposed before with similar intentions, so this is not a radical new idea. Also, we all carry a collection of digital ID on our phones, so in many respects, people are not being asked to do something we do not already do.

---

Read more:
Blair’s ID cards failed in the 2000s – could Starmer’s version fare better?

---

What could capture the public’s attention and concern, however, is the idea that the card is mandatory and universal. If it is only used in the specified circumstances of accessing public services, seeking employment or rented accommodation, then there is no need to see the scheme as anything more than a new way to be efficient.

But will the demand to produce the card outside of these situations become a common practice in efforts to seek out illegal immigrants? What happens to those who do not have access to their digital ID card, or do not want one? Will it create a rift in society by providing more protection from illegal immigration?

These questions are certain to be raised as the government moves ahead with its plan.

---

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

---

Tim Holmes 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. Digital ID cards: what are they and how will they help the UK deal with illegal immigration? – https://theconversation.com/digital-id-cards-what-are-they-and-how-will-they-help-the-uk-deal-with-illegal-immigration-266194

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daanish Mustafa, Professor in Critical Geography, King’s College London

For ten days in April 2025, Pakistan almost came to a standstill. No freight was moving from its only port city, Karachi, towards the population centres in the north. The cause was the government’s announcement of a project to build six canals to irrigate the Cholistan Desert in the east of the country.

Protesters in the southern Sindh province, fearing diminished water supplies, demanded the immediate cancellation of the project and blocked all highways running northwards. The government soon relented, with prime minister Shehbaz Sharif announcing the project’s suspension in early May.

This was probably, at least in part, because the government was anticipating Indian military action. India blamed Pakistan for the Pahalgam terrorist attack, in which 26 people were killed in Indian-administered Kashmir the previous month. Internal squabbles had to be diffused in the face of external threats.

Geopolitics handed a temporary victory to the protesters. But the potential of water to cause conflict in Pakistan remains a live issue, from households using suction pumps to draw more than their share, to large inter-provincial disputes.

---

Wars and climate change are inextricably linked. Climate change can increase the likelihood of violent conflict by intensifying resource scarcity and displacement, while conflict itself accelerates environmental damage. This article is part of a series, War on climate, which explores the relationship between climate issues and global conflicts.

---

As someone who has researched water scarcity in Pakistan for 30 years, I argue that water conflict there is entirely avoidable. It is largely a function of the state’s obsession with supply-side mega projects and a lack of attention to questions of equitable access and quality.

At a time when the effects of climate change are becoming more severe, Pakistan can ill afford to continue its engineering-based approach to water if it is to ensure sufficient access for all.

According to the Pakistani government’s own figures, more than 95% of the available water in Pakistan is devoted to agriculture. It is used to cultivate water-guzzling crops, including rice and sugarcane. Pakistan is the fifth-largest producer and fourth-largest exporter of these crops.

Meanwhile the country’s teeming commercial centre of Karachi, with a population of 18 million, suffers from acute water shortages. Affluent neighbourhoods have water intensive date palms, exotic gardens, golf courses and swimming pools.

But for more than 80% of the city’s poorer neighbourhoods, there is almost complete dependence on water from tankers at up to 30 times the price richer neighbourhoods pay for regular piped water.

Water mains often become battle fronts in Karachi. My own research has documented many instances of violent conflict between different ethnicities and groups around manipulating water mains to gain access.

The minority Christian community in the Gujjar Nala neighbourhood of Karachi, for example, has engaged in violent clashes with the neighbouring Pashtun community over the operation of the regulating valve for allocating water to the two communities.

Conflict has also arisen between the city’s predominantly Urdu-speaking communities of Orangi Town and Altafnagar. Orangi residents attacked and destroyed the overhead water dispenser at the Altafnagar pumping station in early 2015 as it was siphoning water for Orangi to commercial water tankers.

Conflict between provinces

Pakistan is dependent on the Indus River and its tributaries for water. The system recharges the extensive Indus aquifer, which provides up to 80% of the water required for crops in the country.

Inter-provincial conflict over the distribution of Indus River water between upstream Punjab province, where several of Pakistan’s largest cities are located, and downstream Sindh province is an ongoing saga.

Sindh resents any new water mega projects in the powerful Punjab province. Along with the central government, Punjab wants to push forward dams and infrastructure projects in the name of development.

The Sindh-Punjab water conflict had a resolution of sorts in 1991, when the Inter-provincial Water Accord was signed. The agreement allocated water from the Indus River system among Pakistan’s four provinces.

However, Sindh’s civil society and government frequently accuse Punjab of violating the agreement by diverting water from the Indus River without the permission of the chief minister of Sindh, as required by the accord.

Sindhi and Punjabi nationalist politics heavily feature the water conflict in their rhetoric, which is proving corrosive for the federation of Pakistan.

Numerous dams and mining projects in the restive Balochistan province have also alienated the populace against the Pakistani government. They argue that dams are built with little local consultation and become hazards when they are swept away in flash floods. Around 30 dams in Balochistan were swept away during the 2022 floods.

At the same time, massive amounts of water are appropriated by foreign-owned mining operations there. These operations are of little benefit to local populations. The ongoing insurgency in the province, and the associated human rights abuses by the Pakistani state, are not divorced from the politics of water.

Pakistan’s water development paradigm is based on engineering and infrastructure. But under the greater uncertainty of climate change, what is needed is more adaptive and flexible management of water at the local scale.

The current approach locks the state into fixed management based on assumptions underlying the design parameters of the infrastructure.

During flood season, which typically runs from July to September, the design parameters of dams and other infrastructure are now routinely exceeded. Water has to be released to save the infrastructure, thereby accentuating flood peaks.

The bulk of agricultural water also comes from groundwater, but all the investment is in surface water. It is a common lament in Pakistan that groundwater has been left for unregulated exploitation by private electric pumps, with all the attention devoted to surface water.

In domestic water supply, the obsession for photogenic urban green spaces and mega supply projects also take away water from poor areas and resources from the much-needed maintenance of the distribution infrastructure.

Climate change is a wicked problem that defies centralised decision making in a country the size and diversity of Pakistan. Local knowledge and democratic decision making are the best arbiter of adjustment to climate change and equitable water access.

Yet, in a praetorian state like Pakistan, military-dominated governance is unfortunately moving in exactly the opposite direction.

The research cited in this article emerged from grants funded by United States Institute for Peace (USIP) & Royal Geographical Society.

– ref. How water fuels conflict in Pakistan – https://theconversation.com/how-water-fuels-conflict-in-pakistan-262628

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Naporn Popattanachai, Lecturer in Environmental and Marine Law, University of Galway

Two-thirds of the world’s oceans lie beyond national borders, an unregulated expanse under growing pressure from mining, fishing and climate change. Now, a new UN treaty promises to change that – but could also trigger fresh conflicts over who controls the high seas.

The high seas treaty, formally known as the BBNJ Agreement, has finally crossed the threshold to become international law after Morocco became the 60th country to ratify it. This triggers its entry into force in January 2026, opening a new era of ocean governance.

At the heart of the treaty is a plan to create protected areas on the high seas, similar to national parks on land. The goal is to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, a target agreed under the UN’s global biodiversity framework.

Only countries that sign and ratify the treaty will be bound by its rules (with some exceptions). Those that stay outside the agreement, like China or the US, won’t have to follow the treaty – but will lose a say in shaping the multilateral system of ocean governance. The could act unilaterally, but other states would be able to challenge them under the UN convention on the law of the sea.

The new treaty also lays down very detailed processes, thresholds, and other requirements for environmental impact assessments for activities that could harm the high seas. Countries can expect more regulations for activities – especially offshore activities – in their waters if they could cause damage beyond their maritime borders.

The high seas are a huge source of genetic resources. That means any plant, animal or microbe that could lead to new medicines, crops or industrial materials.

The treaty sets out rules for sharing both the materials and the potentially-lucrative scientific information they generate, so that poorer countries can also benefit from discoveries made in these waters. Detailed rules on access and benefit-sharing will be further developed by the countries that have signed the treaty.

However, the treaty will not apply to fishing already covered by international regulations, or to fish or other marine life caught through such activities on the high seas. Effectively, commercial fishing falls outside the scope of this treaty.

Mining pitted against conservation

But conservation isn’t the only activity on the high seas. Mining companies are keen to extract minerals such as nickel, cobalt or copper from below the deep seabed – often in the same areas where fragile ecosystems and valuable genetic resources can be found.

Deep-sea mining is already regulated by the International Seabed Authority, a separate specialised body established by a UN convention that has already granted many exploration contracts and is now drafting new rules for commercial extraction.

The two regimes – the high seas treaty and the seabed authority – compete and conflict with one another. Protecting marine life may significantly limit (if not prohibit) deep-sea mining, and vice versa.

It’s not yet clear how the new treaty will resolve this potential conflict. The only clue we have is that article 5 (2) of the treaty states it shall be interpreted in a way that “does not undermine” other relevant legal and political bodies. It remains to be seen how the two regimes will coordinate in practice, as well as how these competing interests can be reconciled, where the stakes are very high. When protecting biodiversity could stop lucrative mining projects, tensions seem inevitable.

Before the treaty takes effect in 2026, countries that have signed and ratified the treaty will meet again to agree on details: how protected areas will be chosen, how genetic resources will be shared, and how to handle conflicts with activities like fishing and mining.

For anyone involved in marine conservation and governance, this is an exciting moment. The high seas treaty could transform the way we look after the oceans. It gives us the chance to protect vast, vulnerable ecosystems and ensure the benefits of ocean science are shared more equally. But whether it will deliver on that promise depends on whether states can balance conservation with a growing scramble for deep-sea resources.

Naporn Popattanachai 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. A landmark treaty could protect the high seas – and spark new conflicts – https://theconversation.com/a-landmark-treaty-could-protect-the-high-seas-and-spark-new-conflicts-265908

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Montgomery, Lecturer in Work and Organisations, University of Stirling

Nigel Farage’s proposal to abolish indefinite leave to remain is a shifting of the goalposts for those who have already come to the UK legally and settled.

Framing issues of migration as a crisis has been beneficial for Farage and other British politicians as a political strategy. However, on this occasion there are early indications that these proposals may provoke a more negative reaction from the British public.

The idea that even those already granted leave to remain would have to reapply creates insecurity for thousands of people who have come to call the UK home, which speaks to some of the human costs of such proposals.

We should also consider the potential implications for the economy. Reform claims billions could be saved by ending the right to apply for permanent residency in the UK – a claim that was called into question within days.

This indicates a pressing need for scrutiny of the economic impact a Reform government would have, particularly given that the party leading in polls.

Polls are not just indicators of who may next occupy 10 Downing Street. They also send signals to key actors in the economy about the country’s potential future direction of travel. And these signals matter. To understand how, we can turn our attention to the questions that an end to indefinite leave to remain may pose for the UK labour market.

There is already a problem with skills investment in the UK. Decisions to invest in skills and training often require a commitment to long-term investment before the employer and the employee realise the benefits.

But what happens to such investment when employers are unsure if their staff may be forced to leave? This is particularly relevant for those key sectors where there is a greater reliance on migrant workers.

Then there is the issue of job creation. If an employer is currently deciding where to invest and create new jobs, one aspect they will consider is access to the skills they need.

We know that there are key areas where employers are concerned about skills shortages in the UK. Would the potential end of leave to remain make it riskier to invest in creating jobs in the UK? This is a question employers will already be asking.

And if you are a worker from another country with skills that are in high demand, would these proposals make the UK more, or less attractive as a destination to bring skills?

These economic implications lead us to a key political question: who did Reform consult before making this announcement?

Reform has consistently sought to position itself as on the side of British business. Did they speak to the Confederation of British Industry about whether scrapping indefinite leave to remain would be a good idea? The Federation of Small Businesses? Did they speak to industry federations in the care sector, the hospitality sector, the education sector, or the health sector, where employers rely upon migrant workers?

Farage has also been keen to present himself as standing up for British workers and has in the past year been seeking to win support of grassroots union members. Did he consult any of the trade unions that represent millions of workers across the UK? Or did he consult trade union representatives in sectors that may be affected by these new proposals?

What type of consultation has informed these new proposals matters because it sends an important signal on the approach to governing that Farage intends to adopt should he become the next prime minister. Such signals are also likely to inform decisions made before the next election by employers and workers sustaining the UK economy.

Perhaps owing to the rapid rise of the Reform party and the dominance of two parties in government for generations, it has not received the same degree of scrutiny that previous “governments-in-waiting” have received. But given its dominance in the polls, careful consideration of the impact of its proposals is more necessary than ever.

If we look closer at these latest proposals, we see that they will create a more hostile and uncertain environment for those who have lived and worked in the UK for some years and those considering coming to the country. That may have already created risks for the UK economy.

---

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

---

Tom Montgomery works in higher education. He has conducted research on issues of social care, migration and labour markets that has been funded by the European Commission.

– ref. Nigel Farage’s pledge to end indefinite leave could hurt the economy even before an election – https://theconversation.com/nigel-farages-pledge-to-end-indefinite-leave-could-hurt-the-economy-even-before-an-election-266174

Source: The Conversation – UK – By George Newth, Lecturer in Politics and member of Reactionary Politics Research Network, University of Bath

Faced with an insurgent UK far right backed by a billionaire oligarch, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s pledge to lead the progressive fightback is long overdue. If Starmer’s speech, however, is to be anything but empty rhetoric, he must abandon his failed strategy of chasing the Reform vote in favour of a bolder, more hopeful narrative.

Based on his government’s actions and discourse so far, the signs are far from promising. He has helped embolden the very politics he claims to oppose.

Starmer’s speech comes hot on the heels of Britain’s largest ever far-right mobilisation. Between 110,000 and 150,000 people descended on London for the so-called “Unite The Kingdom” march, organised by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (better known as Tommy Robinson).

In line with far-right great replacement theory, the principal target of those speaking at the event was Islam and immigration – but there were plenty of examples of placards targeting other marginalised groups such as LGBTQ+ people.

Appearing via video link, the billionaire oligarch Elon Musk warned of the need “to fight back or die” in the face of “massive uncontrolled migration”. Starmer’s home secretary, Shabana Mahmood labelled Musk’s words as abhorrent and Starmer said some of the views expressed at the rally did not reflect a “nation proudly built on tolerance, diversity and respect”. The government, however, arguably shares significant responsibility for legitimising the politics behind the rally.

Starmer’s denunciation of “loutish behaviour” mimics his decision to attribute the summer 2024 riots to “far-right thuggery”. Countering far-right figures such as Yaxley-Lennon is vitally important. However, on its own, such reactive discourse is not enough. Associating far-right ideas with the margins of society ignores the way in which so-called mainstream politicians have normalised such politics .

The Unite the Kingdom march was the climax of “operation raise the colours”, which saw people all over the country putting up flags wherever they felt like doing so. Bearing all the hallmarks of a carefully coordinated “astroturf” campaign (stimulating grassroots support for a cause and then using that support to legitimise other activities), raise the colours contributed to an emboldening of the far right.

Further to “just” raising the union flag and St George’s cross, there were acts of vandalism against mosques and ethnic food restaurants as well as racist graffiti. It is hard not to also see the link between those putting up flags in the streets and those waving them outside so-called “asylum hotels”.

Most of this has since been condemned by Starmer, yet he initially embraced raise the colours wholeheartedly, even calling himself a “big supporter of flags”. Meanwhile, the (at the time) home secretary Yvette Cooper made the somewhat bizarre assertion that her entire home was bedecked with St George’s crosses and Union Jacks and said that people should “put ‘em up anywhere”.

The violent rhetoric and actions on display at the rally reveal the severe limitations of this attempt to co-opt the flag waving initiative to attract its backers.

I would argue this also illustrates how Starmer’s attempt to pivot towards a more “progressive” form of patriotism is doomed to fail. Because patriotism is so often tied to exclusion and the policing of national boundaries, it ultimately undermines broader commitments to empathy, equality and solidarity.

A losing game

In the longer term, Starmer’s own policies since taking office have tried to outflank Reform on the right. Starmer has framed Reform as Labour’s official opposition. In line with this, the Labour party has made immigration, and Channel boat crossings in particular, one of its top priorities.

On taking office, Labour’s prioritisation of “secure borders” has been encapsulated by the violent slogan of “smash the criminal gangs”. Starmer has accused past Conservative governments of running an “open-borders experiment” and has allowed images of deportations to be made public – a technique most notoriously used in the Trump administration’s racially charged deportation videos that are shared with the public in the knowledge that they will be widely circulated on social media.

Starmer cannot defeat the far right by using its language and tactics. This much is evident not only in the chants and placards which target him at far-right rallies, but also his disastrous polling figures.

In the words of journalist Nesrine Malik, “we need new stories” when addressing the socioeconomic and sociopolitical challenges facing the UK. A key example is the way we talk about immigration. It is telling that just 5% of overall migration to the UK is classified as illegal yet it almost entirely dominates the national conversation.

Starmer has done nothing to counter that imbalance. Indeed, his speech, intended to mark a fightback of progressive values, has doubled-down on anti-migrant rhetoric.

In particular, the introduction of digital ID cards is framed as a way of ensuring Britain takes back control of its borders. Claiming Britain has been “squeamish” about talking about illegal immigration, Starmer has said ID cards would help protect working people’s wages against those who “slip into the shadow economy and remain here illegally”.

Academic research consistently illustrates that the way in which immigration is framed by politicians and the media has a significant impact on how and whether people view it as a “legitimate concern”. It is incumbent on a supposedly “social democrat” prime minister to lead this change in narrative.

Starmer’s intervention on the side of progressive values might be a welcome one, were it not premised on a dead duck narrative of “progressive patriotism”. It is, though, effectively meaningless if he continues to lead a government which oversees and manages the “division” he ostensibly seeks to address.

George Newth is a Lecturer in Politics at University of Bath and is a member of the Green Party

– ref. Starmer has enabled the far-right – promises of ‘progressive patriotism’ are no longer enough – https://theconversation.com/starmer-has-enabled-the-far-right-promises-of-progressive-patriotism-are-no-longer-enough-266036

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katie MacLean, PhD Student, University of Stirling

Popstar Charli XCX is turning her hand to acting in the new film Erupcja. In it, she recites Lord Byron’s poem Darkness. Charli and Byron may be 200 years apart, but the legacies of Romantic poetry are alive in Brat, the singer’s sixth studio album.

Byron has often been described as the first modern celebrity, notorious in regency England for rumours of incest, homosexuality and vampirism. Irish writer Marguerite Gardiner, Countess of Blessington, wrote in 1823 that “Byron had so unquenchable a thirst for celebrity, that no means were left untried that might attain it.”

---

Read more:
Brat by Charli XCX is a work of contemporary imagist poetry – and a reclamation of ‘bratty’ women’s art

---

Brat is similarly concerned with the self-construction of identity and celebrity in Charli’s “party girl” image. Her interest in fame is reflected both in her album’s extensive branding and in lyrics like, “When I go to the club I wanna hear those club classics/I wanna dance to me”.

In Might say Something Stupid, Charli admits that she is “famous but not quite” and doesn’t know if she “belong[s] here anymore”. This echoes John Keats’ 1818 poem When I have fears that I may cease to be, in which he laments that he might die before he experiences true literary achievement and fame. Charli has inherited the identity of lonely artist obsessed with creative genius from the Romantics.

Anxieties around legacy resurface in Apple. Charli uses the apple as a Gothic metaphor for inheritance and cursed fate, not unlike Byron’s On Leaving Newstead Abbey, in which he imagines his ancestors haunting him until death. Romantic poetry is full of this tension between inheritance and decay, and Charli’s lyrics show how those anxieties still haunt us today.

Romantic poets were obsessed with the archaic and classical through Greek and Roman mythology, ruins, and medievalism, like John Keats’ poem Ode to a Grecian Urn. Similarly, Brat frequently looks back with references to Y2K aesthetics and early 2000s culture.

Charli romanticises nostalgia in the song Rewind:

Used to burn CDs full of songs I didn’t know
Used to sit in my bedroom, puttin’ polish on my toe
Recently, I’ve been thinkin’ ‘bout a way simpler time
Sometimes, I really think it would be cool to rewind.

In both cases, romantic nostalgia becomes a creative lens to explore our relationship with the past.

Romantic poets were fascinated by the sublime, characterised as the overwhelming power of nature. In Wordsworth’s Lines Composed A Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey, he contrasts “the din/Of towns and cities” against awe-inspiring “steep and lofty cliffs”.

---

Read more:
How to resolve friendship tension like Lorde and Charli XCX

---

In the song, Everything is Romantic, Charli instead finds beauty in juxtaposing symbols: the man-made (“Bad tattoos on leather tan skin/Jesus Christ on a Plastic sign”) contrasts nature (“Lemons on thе trees and on the ground/[…] Pompeii in the distance”). Where the Romantics rejected the artificial, Charli embraces it, extending Romantic ideas into the 21st century.

The most explicitly romantic song on Brat is So I, an elegy for the producer Sophie, who died suddenly in 2020. Just as in romantic elegies, Charli laments the loss of genius: “Your star burns so bright/ […] You had a power like a lightnin’ strike”.

Percy Shelley’s elegy Adonais, written on the death of Keats, concludes that the genius of Keats lives on through his poetry. Similarly, Charli sings: “Your sounds, your words live on, endless.” The influence of Romantic elegies can still be seen in popular culture through music, particularly songs which immortalise fellow artists and explore contemporary understandings of grief.

The media studies academic David Tetzlaff argues that, “Romanticism remains the common language of middle-class rebelliousness.” Brat rebels most obviously in its neon green branding, hyperpop tracks and aggressive autotune, becoming one of Rolling Stone’s 250 greatest albums of the 21st century so far. So, Brat Summer’ may been a neon green Tik-Tok trend, but the album perfectly showcases how Romanticism influences art and culture today.

As Matt Sangster, an expert in 18th-century literature and material culture, writes in David Bowie and the Legacies of Romanticism, “[t]he ways that texts happened in the past are hugely important, but texts and the idea clusters they spawn are also fascinating for the complex ways that they continue to happen in our lives.” Concerns inherited from the Romantics are evident in Brat, with its exploration of celebrity, nostalgia, nature, legacy and loss. Romanticism isn’t stuck in the 19th century – it is alive today in the very places you may least expect.

---

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.

---

Katie MacLean 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 Charli XCX might be Gen Z’s answer to the Romantic poets – https://theconversation.com/why-charli-xcx-might-be-gen-zs-answer-to-the-romantic-poets-266088