Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Zoe Wimshurst, Senior Lecturer of Sport Psychology, Health Sciences University

Much of the pre-series attention on the 2025 British and Irish Lions tour of Australia has been on injuries, player omissions and personal rivalries.

One of those rivalries involves the Australian sensation Joseph-Akuso Suaalii facing Lions centre player, Sione Tuipulotu, with whom he had a fiery encounter in a match last year.

Suaalii only switched codes from rugby league to rugby union in 2023 and has just five international caps to his name. But despite his lack of union experience, he has been catching attention lately for more than just his powerful runs and physicality. In recent weeks, Suaalii’s unusual pre-match warm-up has also sparked curiosity, most notably, his use of juggling and peripheral awareness drills to prepare his visual system.

For many spectators, seeing a player showing off their juggling skills is more suited to a circus performance than international rugby. But there is science behind his bizarre approach. This preparation could be giving him an edge the Lions should fear.

Growing evidence

Visual performance in elite sport remains an under-applied area of sport science, yet the evidence for its effectiveness is growing.

My own research has found that a county cricket team which underwent six weeks of visual training improved their basic cricket skills more than a control group which did extra cricket skills exercises. This demonstrates that we need to be looking beyond the confines of the sport itself to bring about maximal performance.

Visual skill in sport is about more than just 20/20 vision. Each sport has its own specific demands, and rugby requires skills such as peripheral awareness, depth perception, rapid eye movement, reaction speed, dynamic visual acuity and eye-body coordination.

Combining these visual skills will allow the most accurate information to be sent to the brain for processing – helping players to make the best decisions, even under intense pressure and high levels of fatigue.

By using exercises such as juggling, Suaalii is training several of these visual skills at once. Juggling requires excellent eye-body coordination, the use of the peripheral system and reaction speed. These are all skills which are also used in rugby for catching high balls kicked by opponents, reading attacking threats and spotting the movement of teammates and opposition players.

Juggling has also been shown to bring about positive structural changes in the human brain – particularly in areas linked to processing visual information – and integrating this with motor control.

This demonstrates that this relatively simple exercise can lead to improvements not only in the eyes, but also the brain. In rugby, the visual array will be constantly changing. A shift in the defensive line, a looping support run, a player slightly slow to recover from a ruck, or a spiralling high kick – the ability to spot, process and respond to these visual cues can be the difference between success and failure.

Suaalii is by no means the first rugby player to train his visual system. Former coach Clive Woodward famously brought in a visual performance coach to work with the England team – and they went on to win the 2003 Rugby World Cup.

I also worked with the Harlequins rugby team in the English Premiership as a visual performance coach. We won three trophies in my first three seasons with the team, which is known for free flowing, creative play. This style of play places extremely high demands on the players’ visual systems.

Lions test series

So what particular visual skills can you look out for over this Lions test series and how might they impact the outcome?

When defending close to their own try line, players should be scanning across the width of the pitch to ensure that they do not become outnumbered on either side of the field. Conversely, the attackers should be making rapid scans to quickly identify any mismatch (for example, a slow front row forward versus a swift and agile winger) they can take advantage of.

In these situations, players can often focus too much on the ball, allowing opposition players to craftily reposition themselves unseen. The best players will, wherever possible, be looking at everything, everywhere, all at once, improving their spatial awareness and enabling them to maintain an overview of the game in their minds.

To catch a kicked spiralling highball, a fullback or winger needs exceptional tracking ability and depth perception. Players in this situation are sometimes let down by “convergence issues”, where as the eyes track an object moving towards them, they can drift outwards or become misaligned. This can cause players to mistime their jump, or for the ball to hit their chest before being caught, wasting vital milliseconds. Training these convergence issues has been shown to bring about improvements in sports performance.

As a scrum-half is collecting the ball from a breakdown, they need quickly to scan the positions of teammates on either side of them, and be aware of the depth of the defensive line. Having this visual information will lead to better decisions and creating faster attacking opportunities.

A crunching tackle may seem like a purely strength-based skill. But to ensure it is both perfectly timed and legal, a defender must perfectly anticipate the speed and direction of the oncoming player. They can then use this information to precisely position their own body to impart their full momentum, while using their reaction speed to make last-second adjustments to ensure they do not put their opponent in danger.

Subtle visual advantages, honed through practice, can influence these moments. During this test series, they may well be the difference between winning and losing. Suaalii’s juggling may seem better suited to the circus, but it could be the secret weapon Australia need to secure the series.

Zoe Wimshurst is the owner and director of Performance Vision Ltd, a company which provides visual training and consultancy services.

– ref. Lions rugby tour: why visual training, including juggling, can be a secret weapon in elite sports – https://theconversation.com/lions-rugby-tour-why-visual-training-including-juggling-can-be-a-secret-weapon-in-elite-sports-261424

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Deborah Pain, Visiting Academic, University of Cambridge; Honorary Professor, University of East Anglia, University of Cambridge

The UK’s environment minister Emma Hardy has announced a ban on toxic lead ammunition to protect Britain’s countryside. This ban includes the sale and use for hunting of both lead shotgun ammunition (each cartridge of which contains hundreds of small lead pellets called “shot”), used mainly for hunting small game animals like gamebirds, and large calibre lead bullets, used for hunting large game animals like deer.

This is great news for Britain’s birds because the ban will eventually prevent the deaths and suffering of the vast numbers affected by lead poisoning each year after ingesting lead from ammunition.

Most shot fired do not hit their targets and thousands of tonnes of lead shot are scattered in the environment every year.

Waterbirds and land-based gamebirds mistakenly eat these because they look like food or the grit they ingest to help grind up their food. Shot are retained in their gizzards (a muscular part of the stomach), ground up, and the lead dissolved and absorbed into the bloodstream.

Lead poisoning kills an estimated 50,000-100,000 waterbirds annually in the UK. These birds suffer considerably before they die. Many more birds are poisoned, but not killed.

While this additional “sublethal” poisoning does not kill birds directly, they may be more likely to die of other causes. This is because lead poisoning affects the immune system and behaviour.

The use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl and over certain wetlands is already banned in England and Wales. It is also banned for shooting over all wetlands in Scotland.

However, compliance with the regulations in England is only about 30%, and is also low in Scotland, although has not been measured in Wales. This new comprehensive ban should dramatically improve the situation across all habitats throughout Britain.

Birds of prey, including eagles, common buzzards and red kites ingest lead fragments when they scavenge flesh from animals killed by lead ammunition, or prey on animals wounded by lead ammunition. The acidic conditions in their stomachs help dissolve the lead.

Our research shows that while fewer birds of prey than waterbirds are estimated to die of lead poisoning, it can have a far greater effect on their populations, especially for species that first breed at a later age, produce fewer young, and would otherwise have higher annual adult survival rates.

The lead ban will benefit birds that live in Britain permanently or for just part of the year. But it will not entirely solve the problem for migratory species. If lead shot continues to be used elsewhere, these species may still ingest it on migration or on their breeding or wintering grounds.

Beyond borders

To protect all species, lead ammunition needs to be replaced by non-lead alternatives everywhere. The use of lead shot is already banned in many wetlands globally. Across the EU, a ban on the use of lead shot in or close to wetlands came into force in February 2023.

Denmark was the first country to ban lead ammunition across all habitats. In 1996, it banned the use of lead shot and in April 2024, it banned lead bullets. Our research shows that the lead shot ban in Denmark has been very effective, with good levels of compliance.

Now, Britain is set to become the second country to ban most uses of lead ammunition. This has been made possible by the increasing availability of safe, efficient and affordable non-lead ammunition alternatives, primarily steel shot and copper bullets.

In February 2025, the European Commission published a draft regulation banning most uses of lead ammunition and fishing weights. This awaits approval under EU processes – if successful, it will represent a major step forward.

Beyond birds

Birds are particularly susceptible to the effects of ingested lead from ammunition due to their muscular gizzards and stomach acidity. But it also puts the health of many other animals at risk, including pets and people.

In the UK, we found average lead concentrations in raw pheasant dog food from three suppliers to be tens of times the legal maximum residue limit for lead in animal feed.

The UK government based its decision to ban lead ammunition on a report by the Health and Safety Executive which highlighted risks to the health of young children and women of pregnancy age if they frequently eat meat from game hunted with lead ammunition. Children’s developing nervous systems are particularly sensitive to the effects of lead.

We recently urged the EU’s committee of member states for Reach (the chemicals regulation), the European parliament and council to fully support the European Commission’s proposal to restrict lead ammunition.

We also encouraged the European Food Safety Authority to recommend that the European Commission set a legal maximum level for lead in game meat marketed for human consumption. This maximum level should be similar to the one already set for meat from most farmed animals.

Until this happens, and more countries follow suit by banning all use of lead ammunition for hunting, the health of wildlife, domestic animals and vulnerable groups of people will continue to be threatened by the toxic effects of lead from ammunition.

---

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

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

---

Deborah Pain is an Honorary Professor at the University of East Anglia (Biological Sciences) and a Visiting Academic in the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge. She has been an independent scientist since April 2018. She has received no remuneration for research on lead poisoning since that time, but, along with colleagues, has received funding for the costs of research and chemical analysis from a number of sources, as acknowledged in published papers. She was a member of the UK REACH Independent Scientific Expert Pool (RISEP) and within this the Challenge Panel on Lead in Ammunition and received payment for that work. However, her published research on lead poisoning was independent of that process.

Rhys Green has received funding for research from several organisations including the RSPB, where he was principal conservation scientist until 2017. He is now retired. He is an unpaid volunteer research scientist at RSPB and Emeritus Honorary Professor of Conservation Science in the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge. He is a member of the UK REACH Independent Scientific Expert Pool (RISEP), which is an expert group set up by a UK government agency, the Health & Safety Executive. He receives occasional payments for work done on behalf of RISEP. He is on the Board of Trustees of Chester Zoo.

Niels Kanstrup 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. Britain’s ban on lead ammunition could save tens of thousands of birds from poisoning – https://theconversation.com/britains-ban-on-lead-ammunition-could-save-tens-of-thousands-of-birds-from-poisoning-260958

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

As summer holidays begin, many travellers are packing more than just swimsuits and sunscreen – for millions, medicines are essential. But taking them abroad isn’t always simple. From legal pitfalls to temperature-sensitive drugs, here’s how to travel safely and legally with your medication.

Know the law

Medicines that are legal in the UK can be restricted or even banned in other countries. Having a valid prescription doesn’t guarantee you can take a medicine into another country.

For example, Nurofen Plus, which contains codeine (an opioid painkiller), is prohibited in countries like Egypt, Indonesia and the UAE.

Even common cold remedies containing decongestants like pseudoephedrine can land you in trouble in places like Japan and South Korea. This is because pseudoephedrine can be used to make methamphetamine (“speed”). Likewise, many stimulant ADHD drugs are also banned from these countries.

---

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

---

Some countries have restrictions on the amount of medication that you are allowed to bring into the country – usually a maximum of three months supply.

Travellers often overlook how strict customs regulations can be regarding medications. Even if prescribed for a valid medical reason, carrying a prohibited drug can lead to confiscation (leaving you without essential treatment), fines (especially in countries with tough drug laws) and detention or arrest in rare but serious cases.

If you’re travelling with certain controlled drugs – such as opioids, stimulants or psychotropic substances – you may need to apply for an export licence from the UK Home Office. This is typically required when carrying a supply of three months or more. Examples of controlled drugs include diazepam (for anxiety and muscle spasms), codeine and morphine (for pain), amphetamines (for ADHD) and temazepam (for insomnia).

Before you travel, check whether your medicine is affected by any of these restrictions. Use the country’s embassy website or the UK government’s travel advice to check the rules of your destination country.

This should provide guidance on whether you simply need a copy of your prescription, a doctor’s letter or a special import certificate (some countries require official documentation even for personal use).

The UK government advises carrying controlled drugs or any drugs that might be restricted in your hand luggage. You should take along a prescription or a signed letter from your doctor detailing your medication, dosage and travel dates.

Ensure you take sufficient supplies for the duration of your trip and include extras for unexpected delays, damage or loss.

Store your medication properly

It might be tempting to save space by transferring pills or liquids into smaller containers or pill organisers. While this can be convenient, it’s not always advisable. Customs officials may not recognise unlabelled containers, increasing the chance of delays or confiscation.

Some medications are sensitive to light, air or temperature, and must remain in their original packaging to stay effective. For example, HRT (hormone replacement therapy) sprays like Lenzetto must not be decanted.

These products rely on precise metered dosing and specialised packaging to deliver the correct amount of hormone. Transferring them to another container could result in incorrect dosing or loss of potency.

Similarly, GTN (glyceryl trinitrate) tablets, used to treat angina, should always be stored in their original glass bottle. The active ingredient can evaporate if exposed to air, reducing the tablets’ effectiveness.

You might be worried about the 100ml liquid in hand luggage restriction – with a doctor’s letter certifying the need for this medicine, you should be able to take larger amounts of liquid medicine through security.

Medicines should always be kept in their original packaging with labels intact. When in doubt, ask your pharmacist whether your medication can be safely repackaged for travel.

It’s also important to split your supply of medicines between bags (if more than one is used) in case one is lost. Tablets and capsules can sometimes be placed in a pill organiser for daily use, but always carry the original box or prescription label as backup.

Some medicines require refrigeration – like Wegovy and Ozempic (semaglutide) injections for weight loss or insulin.

Usually, unopened Wegovy pens and insulin preparations should be stored between 2°C and 8°C in a fridge. Once out of the fridge, they can be kept at room temperature (up to 25°C) for up to 28 days, but must be protected from heat and sunlight. High temperatures, such as in direct sunlight or a hot car, can damage insulin.

When travelling, use an insulated travel case or cool pack, but avoid placing pens or other medicines directly next to ice packs to prevent freezing.

Airlines generally do not provide refrigeration or freezer storage for passenger items, including medicines, due to space and liability concerns, but it’s worth contacting them to see if they can help with arrangements for storage. Inspect insulin for crystals after flying – if any are present, it should be discarded.

You can bring needles and injectable medicines like EpiPens (for allergies), insulin or Wegovy in your hand luggage. But it’s important to carry a doctor’s note stating your medical condition and the necessity of the medication, and a copy of your prescription.

You should also declare them at airport security. Security officers may inspect these items separately, so allow for extra time going through security.

Contact your airline for any specific rules on needles and injectable medicines. Always carry such medicines and medical devices in your hand luggage – checked bags can be lost or exposed to extreme temperatures.

Don’t skip doses

Tempting as it may be to leave your medication behind for a short trip, doing so can be risky. Stopping treatment – even temporarily – can lead to relapse or worsening of symptoms (especially for chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension or depression).

For medicines like antidepressants or opioids, people may start feeling withdrawal effects. You’re also at risk of reduced effectiveness if you miss doses of medicines that require consistent levels in your bloodstream.

If you’re considering a break from your medication, consult your doctor first. They can advise whether a short pause is safe or help you plan a travel-friendly regimen.

Take the right documents

While showing your NHS app to border officials may help demonstrate that a medicine is prescribed to you, it’s not always sufficient – especially when travelling with restricted or controlled drugs and injectable medicines.

Most countries require a copy of your prescription, and a doctor’s letter confirming the medication is for personal use. Your doctor is not legally obliged to issue this letter, but most will do so upon request.

It’s best to ask at least one to two weeks in advance, as some practices may charge a fee or require time to prepare the documentation.

Travelling with medication doesn’t have to be stressful, but it does require planning. With the right preparation, you can enjoy your holiday without compromising your health or running afoul of foreign laws.

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

– ref. Going on holiday? What you need to know about taking your meds with you – https://theconversation.com/going-on-holiday-what-you-need-to-know-about-taking-your-meds-with-you-261018

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachael Kent, Senior Lecturer in Digital Economy & Society Education, Department of Digital Humanities, King’s College London

On a sunny afternoon, I was scrolling through social media when I came across a video of a young woman tossing her sunscreen into a bin. “I don’t trust this stuff anymore,” she said to the camera, holding the bottle up like a piece of damning evidence.

The clip had been viewed over half a million times, with commenters applauding her for “ditching chemicals” and recommending homemade alternatives like coconut oil and zinc powder.

In my research on the effect of digital technology on health, I’ve seen how posts like this can shape real-world behaviour. And anecdotally, dermatologists have reported seeing more patients with severe sunburns or suspicious moles who say they stopped using sunscreen after watching similar videos.

Sunscreen misinformation created by social media influencers is spreading and this isn’t just a random trend. It’s being fuelled by the platforms designed to host influencer content.

---

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

---

In my book, The Digital Health Self, I explain how social media platforms are not neutral arenas for sharing information. They are commercial ecosystems engineered to maximise engagement and time spent online – metrics that directly drive advertising revenue.

Content that sparks emotion – outrage, fear, inspiration – is boosted to the top of your feed. That’s why posts questioning or rejecting science often spread further than measured, evidence-based advice.

Health misinformation thrives in this environment. A personal story about throwing out sunscreen performs well because it’s dramatic and emotionally charged. Algorithms reward such content with higher visibility: likes, shares and comments all signal popularity.

Each second a user spends watching or reacting gives the platform more data – and more opportunities to serve targeted ads. This is how health misinformation becomes profitable.

In my work, I describe social media platforms as “unregulated public health platforms”. They influence what users see and believe about health, but unlike public health institutions, they’re not bound by standards for accuracy or harm reduction.

If an influencer claims sunscreen is toxic, that message won’t be factchecked or flagged – it will often be amplified. Why? Because controversy fuels engagement.

---

Read more:
Misinformation lends itself to social contagion – here’s how to recognize and combat it

---

I call this environment “the credibility arena”: a space where trust is built not through expertise, but through performance and aesthetic appeal. As I write in my book: “Trust is earned not by what is known, but by how well one narrates suffering, recovery, and resilience.”

A creator crying on camera about “toxins” can feel more authentic to viewers than a calm, clinical explanation of ultraviolet radiation from a medical expert.

This shift has real consequences. Ultraviolet rays are invisible, constant and damaging. They penetrate cloud cover and harm skin even on cool days.

Decades of research, especially in countries like Australia with high skin cancer rates, show that regular use of broad-spectrum sunscreen dramatically reduces risk. And yet, myths spreading online are urging people to do the opposite: to abandon sunscreen as dangerous or unnecessary.

This trend isn’t driven solely by individual creators. It’s embedded in how content is designed, framed and presented. Algorithms prioritise short, emotionally-charged videos. Interfaces highlight trending sounds and hashtags. Recommendation systems push users toward extreme or dramatic content.

These features all shape what we see and how we interpret it. The “For You” page isn’t neutral. It’s engineered to keep you scrolling, and shock value outperforms nuance every time.

That’s why videos about “ditching chemicals” thrive, even as posts on other aspects of women’s health are shadowbanned or suppressed. Shadowbanning refers to when a platform limits the visibility of content – making it harder to find, without informing the user – often due to vague or inconsistently applied moderation rules.

The system rewards spectacle, not science. Once creators discover that a particular format, like tossing products into a bin, boosts engagement, it’s replicated over and over again. Visibility isn’t organic. It’s manufactured.

Those who throw away their sunscreen often believe they’re doing the right thing. They’re drawn to creators who feel relatable, sincere and independent — especially when official health campaigns seem cold, patronising or out of touch. But the consequences can be serious. Sun damage accumulates silently, raising skin cancer risk with every hour spent unprotected.

Sunscreen isn’t perfect. It needs to be reapplied properly and paired with shade and protective clothing. But the evidence for its effectiveness is clear and robust.

The real danger lies in a system that not only allows misinformation to spread, but also incentivises it. A system in which false claims can boost an influencer’s reach and a platform’s revenue.

---

Read more:
Four ways you can design social media posts to combat health misinformation

---

To resist harmful health trends, we need to understand the systems that promote them. In the case of sunscreen, rejecting protection isn’t just a personal decision – it’s a symptom of a digital culture that turns health into content, and often profits from the harm it causes.

Rachael Kent 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. Scroll, watch, burn: sunscreen misinformation and its real‑world damage – https://theconversation.com/scroll-watch-burn-sunscreen-misinformation-and-its-real-world-damage-261137

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alexandros Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Media Law, University of Essex

When thousands of Afghans were quietly flown to the UK under a secret relocation scheme, few knew it was triggered by an error. A defence official had accidentally leaked the personal data of nearly 19,000 Afghan nationals who had worked with British forces and were at risk of Taliban reprisals.

It has now also been revealed that the leaked list contained the identities of UK special forces and spies.

Even fewer knew that this misstep was being kept from the public by a rare and powerful legal device: a superinjunction. Now, after nearly two years of legal wrangling, the High Court has lifted that order, reopening the conversation about when secrecy in the justice system goes too far.

What is a superinjunction?

An injunction is a court order that stops someone from doing something (like publishing a story) or requires them to do something (like taking down an online post or handing back confidential documents).

A superinjunction goes one step further and does two things: it bans the publication of certain information (usually to protect privacy, safety or national security) and also bans anyone from revealing that the court order even exists.

In essence, it is a tool that provides legal invisibility: the story is hidden and so is the fact that it is being hidden. While an injunction works like a padlock on a filing cabinet, a superinjunction means you cannot even tell anyone the cabinet is even there.

Superinjunctions are exceptionally rare and controversial, precisely because they run counter to the principle of open justice. This is the idea that courts must operate in public, and that their decisions can be seen, scrutinised and questioned. Any derogation from open justice must be continuously justified and treated with considerable caution, especially where media freedom is curtailed.

---

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.

---

Historically, superinjunctions have been used sparingly in cases involving blackmail, risks of violence against witnesses, the protection of children or to prevent tipping-off a subject before an order can be served (such as in fraud investigations), always with the aim of preventing harm or ensuring that justice is done.

The superinjunction committee (which was established in 2010 by Lord Neuberger to review growing concerns about such orders) made clear that the use of these legal tools must meet strict tests of necessity and proportionality. And, that they are only granted where serious harm (for example to life, safety or the administration of justice) is credibly at stake.

Why was a superinjunction granted in the Afghan data breach case?

In this case, the government argued that revealing the data leak could put lives in danger. The leaked spreadsheet contained names, contact details and, in some cases, family information of Afghan nationals who had applied to resettle in the UK. Many feared Taliban retaliation.

So, in September 2023, the Ministry of Defence asked the High Court for an injunction to stop media outlets from reporting on the leak. The judge did not just grant that request, he escalated it to a superinjunction, banning any mention of the case or the fact of the order.

It was described at the time as “unprecedented” in its scope. Journalists, even those who had already discovered the breach, were effectively gagged. The public had no idea any of it was happening.

Why did the court later decide to lift the secrecy?

After multiple hearings and appeals, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled on July 15 2025 that the superinjunction should be discharged once and for all. A government-commissioned review found that the leak may not have spread as widely as initially feared, and that Taliban reprisals were unlikely to be triggered solely by someone appearing on the leaked list.

The judge concluded that while the leak was deeply serious, continued secrecy was no longer necessary, and that the harm of suppressing public debate and scrutiny now outweighed the risks of disclosure. To put it plainly, the balance tipped.

Protection v cover-up

Superinjunctions are not inherently wrong. There are situations where short-term secrecy is essential, for instance for the purposes of shielding vulnerable parties like children or genuinely guarding national security.

But the Afghan case exemplifies the dangers of allowing secrecy to persist too long or too broadly. For nearly two years, the public was kept in the dark about a data breach involving tens of thousands of lives – including British citizens – and a government response that may ultimately cost the taxpayer “several billion pounds”.

In this context, secrecy risked becoming a form of institutional self-protection, shielding the Ministry of Defence and the government from political fallout, legal scrutiny and accountability, rather than safeguarding people from actual harm.

The principle of open justice is at the heart of democratic life. Superinjunctions, by their nature, run directly against that principle. There are times when secrecy might be seen as necessary, but it must always be tightly scoped and justified with evidence while serving the public interest; not convenience or image. By lifting this superinjunction, the courts affirmed that the British public has a right to know not only what went wrong, but that something went wrong at all.

Alexandros Antoniou 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 did the government hide a data leak about Afghans working with British forces and why did the courts finally reveal it? – https://theconversation.com/why-did-the-government-hide-a-data-leak-about-afghans-working-with-british-forces-and-why-did-the-courts-finally-reveal-it-261437

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Mycock, Chief Policy Fellow, University of Leeds

The UK government has announced that the voting age will be lowered to 16 at the next election as part of a wider effort to restore trust in and “future-proof” democracy.

Votes at 16 has grown from a niche concern to become a salient – if contentious – issue supported by most UK political parties and electoral reform groups. The Conservative party remains a holdout – but has never acknowledged the contradiction of its continued opposition to the universal lowering of the voting age while empowering the Scottish and Welsh parliaments to enact the measure during its time in government.

This is a policy response to concerns about declining youth democratic engagement since the late 1990s. Since 1997, the UK general election turnout rate for those aged 65 years and over has consistently been at least 20 percentage points higher than for those aged 18-24.

---

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.

---

Some opponents argue that the Labour government is lowering the voting age to 16 for its own electoral interest, but we should remember this was a clearly stated election manifesto commitment. Votes at 16 was part of the package that delivered Labour to government in 2024 on a huge majority.

That said, public opinion remains steadfastly opposed. The government will need to handle this tension carefully, ensuring that 16- and 17-years-olds are not treated as second-class members of the electorate as this debate pushes forward.

For and against

As when the voting age was universally lowered to 18 in 1969, the case for change has pivoted on perceptions of maturity and markers of adulthood. There was considerable political and public consensus in the 1960s that 18 was the appropriate age of majority and enfranchisement. This link has endured, and many people continue to think under 18s are too socially and politically immature to vote responsibly or regularly.

Supporters of reform emphasise the need to align enfranchisement with other rights realised before or at age 16 – such as paying tax, medical consent, working, autonomy to make decisions about future education and work lives, and undertaking military (if not frontline) service.

Opponents respond by noting the age of majority remains 18, and that the minimum age for many protective and social rights, such as marriage and leaving full-time education, has been pushed upwards to 18 in the past decade or so.

But while 18 remains the legal marker of adulthood, transitions from youthhood to adulthood have become extended and complex. There is no single age point at which young people realise all the social and economic rights and responsibilities associated with adulthood.

Biological maturation extends from late-stage childhood until early adulthood (mid-20s). Traditional markers of adulthood such as financial independence, owning a property, or getting married and having children are occurring later in life than in previous generations.

It is more than 50 years since parliament last reflected and reviewed how society understands, and frames, issues of adulthood and citizenship linked to the ages of majority and enfranchisement. Lowering the voting age to 16 offers a timely opportunity to do so again.

Extensive parliamentary debate lies ahead as this bill makes its way through to becoming law. MPs should take that time to discuss and build consensus around what British democracy should offer young people, and how enfranchisement should be conceptualised for future generations.

Lowering the age is just the start

Now that 16- and 17-year-olds are part of the electorate, we can hope that political parties will improve their responsiveness to the interests of young people.

Unfortunately, where the voting age has already been lowered, we’ve not yet seen parties address their skewed decision-making, representation or electoral behaviour, which continues to favour older voters. The average age of elected representatives has remained around 50 years of age in all UK national and devolved parliaments, and higher in local government. Few young people join political parties or are active in their campaigning.

There is also significant evidence that, regardless of whether the voting age has been lowered or not, young people are not appropriately supported to be politically and media literate to understand how and when to vote, and to make informed and independent voter choices.

So, lowering the voting age should only be the first step in a more concerted effort to improve political literacy and democratic engagement as young people grow up. This should begin in primary, not secondary, school and continue through further and higher education.

Elected representatives should hold regular school surgeries where they meet children and young people, and listen and respond to their issues and concerns. Young people need to learn to discuss political issues in school settings, and political parties should host election hustings in schools and colleges. Young people should also be involved in decision-making in their schools and communities.

Lowering the voting age offers an opportunity to reinvigorate how we host elections to ensure young people enjoy voting for the first time – and encourage their future participation.

Making electoral registration automatic, as the government has promised, will help. But joining the electoral roll is a significant civic moment in young people’s lives. Schools should host electoral registration ceremonies where pupils are welcomed into the electorate by local elected representatives, and automatically given a voter authority certificate so they have an appropriate piece of voter ID.

Political parties need to embrace this once-in-a-generation opportunity that voting age reform presents to secure the future health of British democracy.

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

– ref. UK to lower voting age to 16 – a once-in-a-generation opportunity to secure the future health of British democracy – https://theconversation.com/uk-to-lower-voting-age-to-16-a-once-in-a-generation-opportunity-to-secure-the-future-health-of-british-democracy-261411

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emma Watts, Postdoctoral Researcher in Geography, Swansea University

Earth’s continents may look fixed on a globe, but they’ve been drifting, splitting and reforming over billions of years – and they still are. Our new study reveals fresh evidence of rhythmic pulses of molten rock rising beneath east Africa, reshaping our understanding of how continents break apart.

Our findings could help scientists understand more about volcanic activity and earthquakes.

There are around 1,300 active volcanoes on the Earth’s surface. Active volcanoes are those thought to have had an eruption over the last 12,000 years or so. Of these volcanoes, over 90 lie on the East African Rift Valley – the seam along which Africa is splitting apart. This weak seam of crust may even allow a new ocean to form over the next few million years.

Although ocean formation is happening around the world, and has been for several billion years, there are few places on Earth where you can study different stages of continental breakup at the same time. This is because they normally become submerged under water as the Earth’s crust thins, and seawater eventually inundates the rift valley.

---

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

---

The Rift Valley is different. There is, at its northern end (in Ethiopia) a place called Afar, which sits at the meeting point of three rifts. These are called the Red Sea Rift, the Gulf of Aden Rift, and the Main Ethiopian Rift (see the map below).

The Red Sea Rift has been spreading for the last 23 million years, and the Main Ethiopian Rift for the last 11 million years. There are active volcanoes across all three of these rifts. In Afar, all three rifts are at least partly exposed, with the Red Sea Rift and Main Ethiopian Rift having the most exposure.

Volcanic rocks that erupt when Earth’s tectonic plates spread apart provide a window into the inner Earth that wouldn’t otherwise be accessible. Each lava flow and volcano has its own story that is recorded in the rock and we can learn about that through geochemistry – the concentrations of the elements that make up the rock – and mineralogy – the minerals within the rock.

Analysing these things can tell us about the depth at which the melting rock formed and roughly where in the Earth’s mantle it formed. In our new study, we analysed over 130 new lava samples, obtained from the Afar rock repository at the University of Pisa and our own fieldwork.

We used these samples to investigate the characteristics of the mantle beneath this rifting, when tectonic plates are moving apart from each other. These samples are from Holocene eruptions (rocks younger than 11.7 thousand years old) from across Afar and the East African Rift.

Since the 1970s, scientists have believed that there is a mantle plume beneath the Afar region. Mantle plumes are a portion of abnormally hot mantle (around 1,450°C) or unusual composition of the mantle (or both) below the Earth’s surface. Scientists think it pushed some of the mantle to the Earth’s surface. Our study not only confirms the presence of a mantle plume in this region, but also gives scientists details about its characteristics.

We discovered that the mantle plume beneath the region rises beneath the tectonic plates in pulses, and the pulses have slightly different chemical compositions.

There are mantle plumes around the world. They can be identified in the geological record as far back as several billion years. Each of the plumes has different characteristics – with their own unique chemical composition and shape.

One mantle plume still active today is the one lying below the Hawaiian islands. These islands are part of the Hawaiian Emperor chain, formed over the last 80 million years or so, and are still forming today. The islands originate from the Pacific tectonic plate slowly moving across the top of a mantle plume, making lava bubble up, erupt and eventually solidify as rock.

This plume melts the Earth’s mantle and forms magma, which over long periods results in the formation of an island chain or breaks up continents. It can also form volcanoes along a rift in the Earth’s crust, as we see in east Africa. The Hawaiian plume signature comes from two chemical compositions rising up through the mantle together like two vertical strands.

While scientists have long thought there probably is a plume underneath Afar, what it looks like is debated.

In our study, we created several scenarios of what the plume looks like and then used mathematical modelling to see which plume scenario best fit the sample data. Using this data-driven approach, we show that the most likely scenario is a singular plume that pulses with different chemical compositions.

The three rifts in Afar are spreading at different rates. The Red Sea Rift and Gulf of Aden Rift are moving faster at about 15mm per year (that’s half the rate your fingernails grow at) compared to the Main Ethiopian Rift moving at about 5mm per year. We deduced that the pulses are flowing at different speeds along the stretched and thinner undersides of the tectonic plates.

All this shows us that the motion of tectonic plates can help focus volcanic activity to where the plate is thinner.

This finding has important implications for how we interpret volcanic and earthquake activity. It may indicate that volcanism could be more likely to occur in the faster spreading and thinner portions of the rift, as the flow beneath replenishes the magma more frequently.

However, the eruptions here may be less explosive than the slower spreading rifts. This fits observations that explosive eruptions occur more frequently in the Main Ethiopian Rift (which sits on a thicker part of the plate and where the volcanoes are more mature), compared to the Red Sea Rift.

Our understanding of the link between continental rifting and mantle plumes is still in its infancy but research is already providing insights into how tectonic plates affect mantle plumes and how this might be recorded in the future seafloors of Earth.

Emma Watts works for Swansea University. She receives funding from Natural Environment Research Council and the UK Research Council.

Derek Keir works for the University of Southampton. He receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council.

Thomas Gernon works for the University of Southampton. He receives funding from the WoodNext Foundation, a donor-advised fund program, and from the Natural Environment Research Council.

– ref. We detected deep pulses beneath Africa – what we learned could help us understand volcanic activity – https://theconversation.com/we-detected-deep-pulses-beneath-africa-what-we-learned-could-help-us-understand-volcanic-activity-260129

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Willow Neal, Postgraduate Researcher in Conservation Ecology, The Open University

Biodiversity is in rapid decline, across the UK and globally. Butterflies are excellent for helping us understand these changes. Where butterfly communities are rich and diverse, so too is the ecosystem. But the opposite is also true: if butterfly numbers are low and there are few species, it is a bad sign for the overall variety and abundance of life in the area.

Butterfly sightings were among the lowest on record in the UK in 2024 – a low point in a downward trend that has been documented in North America and elsewhere.

The UK’s low numbers last year were probably due to the weather – in particular the notably cloudy and wet summer. These are not ideal conditions for butterflies, which use the Sun’s warmth to regulate their temperature and (mostly) do not fly in the rain.

---

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

---

While weather patterns vary, climate change is making unpredictable weather more common. Wildlife is under the immense combined pressure of habitat loss and climate change, and it is driving many species to extinction. Consecutive summers with poor weather can push butterflies, and other species, over the edge.

Luckily for butterflies, 2025 has been a stark contrast – so far. After the driest spring since 1893 and multiple early summer heatwaves in the UK, butterflies are really bouncing back under lots of sunshine, which keeps them active.

Legendary lepidopterist Chris van Swaay of Butterfly Conservation Europe posts results of Dutch butterfly counts from early spring to late autumn. Many of these “transect surveys”, which involve recording butterflies while following a straight line through a habitat, have been repeated in the same locations over several decades. As such, they give reliable trends of butterfly diversity and abundance.

Van Swaay notes that many common species are having an excellent year. Many of the white species, including the large white, small white and green-veined white, are faring particularly well. Peacock butterflies are also being recorded on these Dutch transects in some of their best numbers for the past 20 years. These trends are likely to be the same in the UK.

On the Knepp estate in West Sussex, a farm that underwent rewilding in 2001, biologists are reporting record numbers of not just butterflies in general, but the elusive and stunning purple emperor (Apatura iris). This species can only survive in old and large woodlands with willow trees that they lay their eggs on. Because they live almost exclusively in the canopy, they are often difficult to see.

It is a treat to see even one purple emperor, and Knepp has been recording their numbers since 2014. The previous record was 66 over the entire summer in 2018 (another hot and sunny one). But 2025’s numbers have smashed that, with a running total of 80 as of July 11.

I have the pleasure of often working in a meadow next to a river, and butterfly numbers are staggering here compared with 2024. Even the buddleia bush outside my office has had at least 30 butterflies at a time, of a wide variety of common species, during the past few weeks – an absolute joy to see.

Hot weather helps butterflies – until it doesn’t

This sounds like good news, right? Butterflies have been saved, and we didn’t have to do anything. I’d be happy even if that put me out of a job, and despite it ignoring the incredible work of charities like Butterfly Conservation. But it is, of course, not the whole story.

Our standard for what constitutes a great year for butterflies has been considerably lowered due to the extent of loss over decades and centuries. The great butterfly summer we are having might be comparable to an awful year 30 years ago. Similarly, this hot and dry weather is good for a while – but if it doesn’t start raining soon, plants are going to wilt.

We saw this during the intense heatwave of summer 2022. Both the plants that butterfly larvae use for food and the nectar sources of adult butterflies were under so much stress from a lack of rainfall that they failed to help adults and caterpillars alike.

The exceptionally warm spring of 2025 led to butterflies emerging from hibernation (referred to as “overwintering” when it concerns insects) unusually early.

Butterflies overwinter as eggs, caterpillars or adults. Their emergence is typically triggered by rising temperatures, and this year’s warmth appears to have accelerated that process: 21 out of 33 butterfly species in Dorset were spotted earlier than usual. The dingy skipper (Erynnis tages), a small, unassuming and increasingly rare species, emerged a whole month earlier than usual.

While early sightings may seem encouraging, they raise concerns. If plants do not also respond to the warmer temperatures by blooming earlier, there may not be enough food to sustain these early butterflies and other pollinating insects. This is a growing concern as the global climate changes.

Overall, there are reasons to be delighted about the summer of 2025. The sunny weather has allowed for a vital boom in butterfly numbers, despite the constant strain that nature is under. It is refreshing to see a bush full of vivid, beautiful insects.

However, the rain is still necessary, and the see-saw between a very wet year in 2024 and the potential for a very dry one in 2025 indicates climate change’s violent disruption of weather patterns which nature has depended on for a long time.

You can support butterfly conservation by mowing your lawn less, planting more native flowers, and joining the UK’s annual Big Butterfly Count – which starts on Friday, July 18 – to report your sightings and help experts like me keep track.

---

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

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

---

Willow Neal received funding from NERC (National Environmental Research Council).

– ref. Why the UK’s butterflies are booming in 2025 – https://theconversation.com/why-the-uks-butterflies-are-booming-in-2025-256039

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Nolan, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Liverpool John Moores University

It’s no secret that public finances are tight in the UK. This spells trouble for many sectors, not least culture. After all, this is an area that often relies on public funding – with many projects facing an uncertain future. But in an era of economic bad news, can it be justifiable to pump money into what some see as “frivolous” projects?

For some politicians, investment in cultural infrastructure is an investment in place and in people. This is the hope behind a £270 million fund that aims to boost the resilience of cultural institutions following an era of restricted public spending. There are limitations, and the culture-led approach – as with regeneration projects in general – remains only partially successful and deeply uneven.

From the role of large-scale cultural events like the European Capital of Culture to the so-called “Bilbao effect” (where a new cultural site is thought to spark revitalisation and economic growth), the same questions arise. Who is it for? What type of value is created – and is it shared in equitably?

But the question is also about how we might better understand and measure the value of a cultural site, collection or (re)development.

---

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

---

Pinning down the meaning of “value” is a tricky philosophical question – one that has long plagued economists. The standard evaluation tool of cost-benefit analysis tries to collapse these debates into a number. That is, a price that can measure the multi-faceted benefits a project can provide.

But in the cultural sphere, value often comes without a price tag. Access to many of our museums and galleries is free and the values derived from them transcend the monetary.

Even though economists can estimate this non-monetary value (albeit not without criticism), a more wide-ranging benefit of cultural investment is harder to understand. This is the counter-intuitive notion of “non-use value”.

In other words, this is the benefit that flows to an individual from the existence of a cultural good such as a museum. It can be without that person ever setting foot inside the building or engaging with any of the collections.

Consider a current culture-led redevelopment in the UK: the Waterfront Transformation Project in Liverpool. This ambitious scheme takes in the redevelopment of the International Slavery Museum, Maritime Museum and associated outdoor spaces.

Within this collection of cultural goods, “use” could be a visitor stepping inside the museums. They may derive multiple benefits, from the aesthetics of the building, the creativity of the displays and the histories and stories represented in the collection.

But what about a history lover who either lacks the desire or the ability to visit the collection? Or someone whose memories or heritage intertwines with the history? Despite having no direct contact, they might still benefit from the sites’ continuing existence: the fact, for example, that a place exists where other citizens can visit, challenge and debate.

For some, there is value simply in knowing that there are spaces for this kind of engagement. In this way, public use by others can generate indirect benefits. These benefits cannot be captured by traditional metrics like footfall. But they constitute value to that individual and, in turn, the communities in which they live.

Assessing value

The inclusion of non-use value within the Treasury’s evaluation recommendations recognises this complex public relationship with cultural goods. Correctly capturing these benefits is crucial. If not, funders may misconstrue a project’s total economic value when they make their decisions. Some that could generate significant public value might be overlooked.

However, non-use value can be slippery both to define and measure. Understanding how engagement with publicly funded cultural goods varies across communities and regions is crucial. This current gap in our knowledge means that non-use value is not always fully considered in the design or evaluation of cultural programmes.

Our ongoing project, undertaken along with post-doctoral research fellow Laura Taggart, attempts to improve this understanding in the context of Liverpool’s Waterfront Development Project.

This process raises vital questions. What are the benefits and potential harms of the site? How do relationships with it change over time and across economic and ethnic groups? And how does the public’s historic relationship with the dockside change the nature of the non-use value generated?

Clearly, the answers to these questions cannot easily be calculated from the results of a cost-benefit analysis. Like most economic tools it is a model – a simplification of reality that aims to help policymakers make informed decisions. By engaging locally and regionally, it is easier to understand what drives non-use value – and capture it in a way that is relevant across other projects.

At heart, our project aims to capture the voices that are often excluded or overlooked in decisions about cultural funding. By developing a better understanding of the range of non-use value from these spaces, we hope to support more rounded approaches to cultural policy.

This means improving evaluation tools and funding frameworks. They must better reflect how people relate to cultural goods and how this differs across communities and regions. This will help in the quest for a richer concept of “value for money” — one that supports political choices that recognise the long-term civic, emotional and historical returns of cultural infrastructure.

Ultimately, in an era of tight budgets this allows for better and more targeted decision-making that recognises the often complex value and benefit flows that culture generates. But there is work to be done to help the public articulate the nature of benefits and costs. These are as vital and complex as the cultural goods that generate them.

This article is part of the wider project – Cultural Heritage, People and Place (CHerPP) : Understanding Value via a regional case study. It is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the UK Government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Grant reference AH/Y000242/1

– ref. When public money is tight, how do governments put a price on culture? – https://theconversation.com/when-public-money-is-tight-how-do-governments-put-a-price-on-culture-259483

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Lamont, Research Fellow, Marine Biology, Lancaster University

Why do people care about coral reefs? Why does their damage cause such concern and outrage? What drives people to go to great lengths to protect and restore them?

Of course, it’s partly because of their ecological importance and economic value – but it’s also because they are beautiful. Healthy coral reefs are among the most visually spectacular ecosystems on the planet – and this beauty is far from superficial. It underpins cultural heritage value, supports tourism industries, encourages ocean stewardship and deepens people’s emotional connections to the sea.

But how can such beauty be measured? And when it is destroyed, can it be rebuilt?

---

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

---

Traditionally, many coral reef monitoring and restoration programmes overlook their beauty, considering it too subjective to measure. And as a team of scientists, that frustrated us. We knew that to most effectively draw on this key motivator for coral conservation, we had to be able to measure beauty.

In some ways, it’s an impossible task. But our new study grapples with this challenge, delivering a way of quantifying the aesthetic value of a coral reef, as well as measuring its recovery when previously damaged reefs are restored.

Our international team of marine scientists has been working at the Mars coral restoration programme (the largest project of its kind) in central Indonesia. Here, local communities and international businesses have collaborated for over a decade, rebuilding reefs that were once decimated by dynamite fishing. This illegal fishing method uses explosives to stun and kill fish for easy collection, while shattering coral reefs into rubble – wiping out entire reef communities in seconds.

This Indonesian project has already successfully regrown coral reefs. But we wanted to explore whether this programme had been able to recreate the visual appeal of a natural reef ecosystem.

We took standardised seabed photos using settings that automatically adjust white balance and colour to compensate for underwater light conditions. This enabled us to capture accurate colours under consistent shallow-water conditions across healthy, degraded and restored reef sites.

Then we conducted online surveys with more than 3,000 participants, asking them to compare pairs of photographs and choose which they found more beautiful – enabling us to derive a rating for each photograph. Our results showed that people from very different backgrounds consistently shared similar opinions on which reefs were beautiful.

Whether respondents were young or old, from countries with coral reefs or without, or had different levels of education and familiarity with the ocean, they tended to favour images with high coral cover, vibrant colours and complex coral structures. This suggests there is a shared human appreciation for the beauty of thriving reefs.

We also used these ratings to train a machine-learning algorithm based on AI to reliably predict people’s visual preferences for photographs of different coral habitats.

The results of people’s survey responses and the machine learning algorithm were the same. Images of restored reefs were consistently rated just as beautiful as those of healthy reefs, and far more aesthetically pleasing than degraded reefs. This is encouraging, and important. It shows that efforts to rebuild these charismatic ecosystems can recreate the beauty that makes them so highly valued.

Tracking recovery

We found that beauty was strongly linked to the number of colours present in the picture, the proportion of the image taken up by living coral, and the complexity of shapes exhibited by the corals. Meanwhile, images showing grey rubble fields of dead corals with little life were consistently rated lowest.

Our results suggest that promoting a range of different coral colours and shapes will not only help marine life, but also restore the visual, cultural and tourism value of thriving coral reefs. Reef restoration experts can achieve this by choosing donor corals – healthy corals transplanted to degraded sites to aid recovery – to add colour and variety to the reefs they plant.

This also means that coral reef recovery can be tracked using simple photo-based monitoring, like that used in our study.

Coral reefs need long-term care to help them survive, thrive and maintain their beauty and ecological function. To ensure that initial restoration gains are not quickly lost, such efforts need to be paired with ongoing monitoring and maintenance. Any tourism development around restored reefs also needs to be managed carefully and sustainably.

Restoration and sustainable tourism practices can help protect and sustain the ecological and social benefits of beautiful, healthy reefs. Ultimately, restoring beautiful reefs will be crucial for communities that rely on marine tourism, and for inspiring people to care for the ocean.

---

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

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

---

Tim Lamont receives funding from the Royal Commission of 1851 and the Fisheries Society of the British Isles.

Gita Alisa receives funding from Friends of Lancaster University in America and Sheba Hope Advocate Program.

Tries Blandine Razak receives funding from the Pew Charitable Trust and the Fisheries Society of the British Isles.

– ref. The beauty of coral reefs is key to their survival – so we came up with a way to measure it – https://theconversation.com/the-beauty-of-coral-reefs-is-key-to-their-survival-so-we-came-up-with-a-way-to-measure-it-261013