The Conversation – UK – Page 53 – MIL Submissions Engine

October 17, 2025

Why The Traitors is still a masterclass in the psychology of human deception

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Jones, Associate Dean for Education and Student Experience at Aston Business School, Aston University

The Traitors might sound like another reality TV gimmick. But look closer, and you’ll find a psychological pressure cooker where deception, trust and paranoia are all on view.

Contestants live together in a Scottish castle. A few are secretly chosen as Traitors, tasked with “murdering” their fellow players while avoiding suspicion. The rest are “Faithfuls”, trying to banish the Traitors before it’s too late.

With no evidence, alliances are fragile and instinct becomes weaponised. Let’s unpack the psychology driving every twist, accusation, and betrayal.

At the heart of The Traitors is theory of mind. This is our ability to guess what others are thinking. In normal life, it helps us empathise. In the castle, it fuels suspicion.

Players spiral through layers of paranoid thinking: “Does she know I suspect her?” It’s mentally exhausting. Stress impairs our judgement. We misread silence, mistake nerves for guilt, and project our fears.

Alyssa (who featured in the first series) was banished simply for being quiet. Her calmness was seen as coldness, and that was enough to say goodbye, despite the fact that she was a Faithful, not a Traitor.

Lying is mentally taxing. Suppressing the truth, inventing a story, managing facial expressions, it all increases our cognitive load. Under pressure, even skilled liars show cracks: pauses, micro-expressions (brief, involuntary facial expressions that reveal a person’s true emotions) and anxiety.

But here’s the twist, truth-tellers look just as twitchy. Psychologist Paul Ekman called this the “Othello error”: mistaking fear for deceit. Series 2’s Paul played a cool, calculated game, manipulating perception with emotional detachment. The group couldn’t keep up.

The roundtable is where logic crumbles. Once a few confident voices point fingers, others fall in line. This is known as groupthink, and it is where the drive for agreement overrides critical thinking.

Add confirmation bias, which is where we see what we expect, and things escalate fast. In Series 2, contestant Kyra was banished after one comment was misread. No one challenged it. Bye Kyra. Often, they don’t just get it wrong, they agree on getting it wrong.

The problem with ‘vibes’

When facts fail, instinct fills the gap. But “weird vibes” are shaped by in-group bias. We can’t help but trust those who seem like us.

Players who don’t match the group’s emotional script – those who are too
quiet, too blunt, too intense – become scapegoats. In contrast, Traitors who mirror emotions survive. Wilf (Series 1) played this to perfection: loyal friend on the outside, silent assassin within.

Traitors don’t see themselves as villains. They rationalise: “It’s just a game.” By rewriting the story, their cognitive dissonance (the discomfort of acting against their values) is soothed away.

Faithfuls do it too. When they wrongly banish someone, they convince themselves the signs were there. It’s not evil. It’s self-preservation. Few people enjoy the tension of contrasting values and actions.

In the absence of truth, perception rules. Every laugh, pause or raised eyebrow becomes part of the performance.

Sociologist Erving Goffman called this “impression management”. On The Traitors, it’s survival. Too passive? You’re hiding something. Too assertive? You’re manipulative.

The goal is to appear confident, sincere and harmless. Even silence is strategic, but dangerous if misread.

We watch The Traitors knowing more than the players, and yet we still get it wrong. It flatters our instincts, then flips them. We shout at the screen and we fall for the same tricks.

It reflects our real lives: teams, friendships, group chats. We all manage impressions. We all judge others. And under pressure, we all rewrite reality to stay safe. The real twist? The psychological traps of The Traitors aren’t locked in a castle. They’re everywhere.

Paul Jones 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 The Traitors is still a masterclass in the psychology of human deception – https://theconversation.com/why-the-traitors-is-still-a-masterclass-in-the-psychology-of-human-deception-267750

October 17, 2025

The Life of Violet: three unearthed early stories where Virginia Woolf’s genius first sparks to life

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jade French, Postdoctoral Researcher , Loughborough University

Few feelings are more thrilling for a literature scholar than unearthing an archival gem. Urmila Seshagiri, professor of English at the University of Tennessee, got to experience such a jolt when she was told about previously unseen typescripts of three short stories by Virginia Woolf.

These interconnected tales, written in 1907, comprise a mock biography of Woolf’s friend Mary Violet Dickinson, an independent woman who moved in aristocratic circles and who would be crucial to the development of Woolf’s early writing.

In 2022, Seshagiri was finally able to make the trip to Longleat House, a stately home in south-west England, and open up a cream-coloured case containing a polished version of the stories. Another set exists in the US at the New York Public Library, catalogued as Friendships Gallery (the title of the first story). However, to see these drafts reworked by Seshagiri gives them fresh editorial impetus.

It had previously been presumed these stories were a lighthearted footnote to Woolf’s canon in draft form, written as a joke for a friend rather than work to be taken seriously. But now they have been published, bound and critically contextualised for the first time as The Life of Violet: Three Early Stories.

In contextualising these stories, Seshagiri introduces us to a young Virginia Stephen’s “first fully realised literary experiment”, written as she stood on the precipice of Bloomsbury Group-inflected fame.

Juvenilia – work produced when an artist is still young – often isn’t taken seriously. Woolf was even quoted as saying: “I don’t want immaturities, things torn out of time, preserved.”

But the typescripts stored at Longleat House suggest otherwise. Woolf had made amendments and opinions were sought from her sister Vanessa Bell, who thought the work was “very witty and brilliant”.

Seshagiri writes about the seemingly minor changes made by Woolf in detail, with “each clause balanced and weighted for impact”, as well as her overall compositional vision. And she explains how Woolf wove in Dickinson’s own pencilled edits.

Despite such attention to detail, the stories are short – unlike Dickinson, who stood at six feet two inches. Woolf conceptualises her friend as a giant, both literally and figuratively.

Together, Friendships Gallery, The Magic Garden and A Story to Make You Sleep can be read as a manifesto on female friendship and the importance of intergenerational exchange (Woolf was 20 and Dickinson 37 at their first meeting).

These were not merely society ties – their friendship ran deep: Dickinson cared for Woolf during a mental health crisis in 1904 at her home in Welwyn in Hertfordshire. Dickinson is also credited with enabling Woolf’s early literary ambitions as she took steps toward her inimitable style.

In Friendships Gallery, we meet Violet as a child and follow her to middle age, although Woolf’s narrator refuses to fill in the blanks that “yawn like awful caverns”. Instead of facts, we find anecdotes woven into an elevated mediation on biography.

Woolf asks: “Where does care for others become care for oneself?” Individual care is extended collectively outwards, as Violet’s bold laughter and antics slough off Victorian values. Through her friend’s example, Woolf maps out a route towards independence for a new generation of women.

In The Magic Garden, Violet takes tea in an aristocratic home, fielding information on gardening and plumbing. Such information fuels her quest for autonomy, as she cries out with joy about the benefits of having “a cottage of one’s own”. Such calls for creative independence preempt Woolf’s later manifesto, A Room Of One’s Own (1929).

While the first two stories are anchored in an insider’s perspective of English class dynamics, skewering prevailing social norms, the last, A Story to Make You Sleep, takes inspiration from Dickinson’s visit to Japan and the letters she wrote to Woolf.

Turning from mock biography to ancient myth, the story follows a giant princess who saves a village through laughter, before riding a sea monster into an unknown destiny. Unmoored from a context Woolf knew, the use of made-up words and faux Japanese customs stand out – a point Seshagiri reflects on with nuance in the Afterword.

These fantastical, farcical, anti-fairytales offer a glimpse into the early friendships that underpinned Woolf’s world in the years after her parents passed away. They also hint at the playfulness to come in Flush: A Biography (1933) – a social commentary told from the perspective of poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s cocker spaniel. They equally foreshadow the tale of queer love and time travel in Orlando: A Biography (1928), based on Woolf’s relationship with the writer and gardener Vita Sackville-West.

Beyond Woolf’s own canon of experimental biography, they also connect her to a tradition of surreal, feminist fabulists. In them, she finds odd kinship with the likes of Leonora Carrington and Angela Carter.

In bringing together these stories under the title The Life of Violet, the edition charts a literary turning point in the Woolf’s life. The stories are filled with recurring subjects found in her writing: of women’s history and education, of egalitarianism, of experimenting, and of blending biographical fact with fiction.

They remind us that Woolf had a playful, sardonic side and used comedy, as much as highbrow literary experiments, to push beyond the boundaries of tradition. Discoveries such as this also show that the steady image of literary figures (especially those with a booming industry behind them) is never fixed – but rather, reshaped through new readers and ongoing interpretation.

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

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.

Jade French receives funding from The Leverhulme Trust.

– ref. The Life of Violet: three unearthed early stories where Virginia Woolf’s genius first sparks to life – https://theconversation.com/the-life-of-violet-three-unearthed-early-stories-where-virginia-woolfs-genius-first-sparks-to-life-266005

October 17, 2025

Should the UK introduce targeted prostate cancer screening? The case for and against

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Pinar Uysal-Onganer, Reader in Molecular Biology, University of Westminster

Former UK prime minister Rishi Sunak has called for a targeted prostate cancer screening programme for men most at high risk of the disease, reviving a national debate on how to save more lives and tackle health inequalities among men.

The plan, supported by Prostate Cancer Research, would provide regular screening for men aged 45 to 69, particularly those of African-Caribbean descent or with a family history of the disease.

The case for prostate cancer screening

Pinar Uysal-Onganer, Reader in Molecular Biology, University of Westminster

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the UK, with more than 63,000 new cases each year. But big gaps remain in who gets diagnosed, how early it’s caught and who survives, reflecting differences in race, region and access to healthcare.

African-Caribbean men are twice as likely to develop the disease and are more likely to die from it than white men. The risk is also higher for those with a father or brother who has had prostate cancer. These differences are not purely biological – they also reflect gaps in awareness, access to care and trust in the health system. A targeted screening programme could begin to close that gap.

The screening process would begin with a PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test, which detects the concentration of a protein produced by the prostate gland. If the PSA level is higher than expected, this would trigger a step-by-step diagnostic process, including MRI scans to improve accuracy and, when necessary, a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis.

Recent improvements in imaging technology help doctors to differentiate aggressive prostate cancers from less aggressive ones with much greater accuracy, making modern screening considerably more precise than it was ten years ago.

Early detection is vital in prostate cancer, as it is with many other cancers. Prostate cancer often develops silently for years before any symptoms appear. By the time it is noticed, it may already have spread beyond the prostate gland.

At that stage, treatments such as hormone therapy or chemotherapy can help control the cancer, although rarely cure it. Detecting prostate cancer earlier through targeted screening would enable less invasive and more effective treatment, offering a far greater chance of full recovery.

Importantly, this proposal recognises the need for greater inclusivity in men’s health. African-Caribbean men and those living in deprived areas are often underrepresented in clinical research, which contributes to gaps in understanding and poorer outcomes.

A screening model based on scientific evidence and community engagement could help close that gap. It would also encourage younger men, particularly those in their 40s, to take a more active interest in preventive health, replacing fear and stigma with informed confidence.

The proposed programme, estimated to cost £25 million annually (approximately £18 per patient, would be less expensive than many current national screening initiatives while offering potentially transformative benefits.

Notably, men in Scotland, as well as the north-west, West Midlands and Wales, have significantly lower survival rates, indicating persistent geographical inequalities in prostate cancer prognosis. Beyond early diagnosis, the proposal could foster trust and participation among underrepresented groups, stimulate biobank research to better understand ethnic and genetic risk and ultimately set a precedent for equity-driven preventive healthcare.

A national targeted PSA screening programme would save lives and demonstrate that all men, regardless of background or postcode, deserve the same chance of early detection.

Rishi Sunak. — Rishi Sunak is a patron of Prostate Cancer Research.
Sussex Photographer/Shutterstock.com

The case against prostate cancer screening

Alwyn Dart, Lecturer, Cancer Institute, UCL

Men should see their doctor regularly to look after their health and spot problems early. Serious illnesses like heart disease, diabetes and some cancers can be controlled or stopped altogether if caught in time. But men don’t always look after their health as well as women do.

One in five men put off going to the doctor or having tests. This is often because they feel embarrassed, awkward, or worried about what other people might think, especially when it comes to intimate health issues. When men finally do get help, their problems are often more serious and harder to fix by then. This is particularly true for prostate problems and prostate cancer.

A test called the PSA test has been suggested as a simple way to screen for prostate cancer. A single blood test could easily be added to routine health checks. Women already have screening programmes for breast and cervical cancer that have been running for years and save thousands of lives every year by catching cancer early. So on the face of it, having a similar blood test for prostate cancer in men seems like an obvious good idea.

But here’s the problem. The PSA test isn’t nearly as reliable as the tests for breast and cervical cancer. While breast cancer tests have a “sensitivity” (ability to accurately detect cancer) of between 50-91%, the PSA test has a sensitivity of around 20% – at the standard PSA cut-off of 4ng/mL. Things like an enlarged prostate, infections, or even recent exercise can give false results and make it look like someone has cancer when they don’t.

This unreliability causes a lot of problems. A high PSA result triggers a whole chain of tests and investigations into the prostate, some of which can be invasive, uncomfortable and painful. These investigations themselves can cause unnecessary worry and put men at risk of harm. Men might end up anxious and stressed for no good reason.

The other issue is that some prostate cancers grow very slowly and might never actually harm a person during their lifetime. They might just need careful watching rather than aggressive treatment. But when tests give “false positives” – saying someone has cancer when they don’t – each one means more investigations that need to happen. This piles pressure on doctors, radiologists and other specialists who are already stretched thin.

If someone is diagnosed with prostate cancer and gets surgery or radiation treatment, it can lead to serious side-effects like loss of bladder control, erectile dysfunction and serious psychological stress. Research shows that most prostate cancers tend to grow slowly and are not be life-threatening.

The PSA test is also unreliable in the other direction. Some men who actually do have prostate cancer may get a normal result and don’t get checked properly when they should have been.

Looking at the bigger picture, studies show that PSA screening only prevents three deaths from prostate cancer out of every 1,000 men tested. But it leads to unnecessary diagnoses and interventions in up to 60 out of 1,000 men. That’s far more harm than good.

From the NHS’s point of view, setting up a nationwide PSA screening programme would be hugely expensive and disruptive. Experts estimate it would increase the number of tests and scans needed by approximately 23%.

This would mean thousands more appointments, more specialist doctors and staff, and lots of money spent on scanners and lab work – all things the NHS is already stretched thin trying to provide. This extra workload could mean less time and money for patients who urgently need help with other cancers or serious illnesses.

The real answer isn’t just to test more men for prostate cancer; it’s to find a better test. Men should definitely pay more attention to their own health, but until we have a test that can tell the difference between prostate cancers that will genuinely threaten someone’s life and those that won’t, a nationwide PSA screening programme would do more damage than good.

It would turn healthy men into patients, overload hospitals even more, and wouldn’t actually give people clear answers. What we really need is a test that finds the right cancers, at the right time, using the right tool – in other words, a better test.

Pinar Uysal-Onganer receives funding from Prostate Cancer UK.

Alwyn Dart 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. Should the UK introduce targeted prostate cancer screening? The case for and against – https://theconversation.com/should-the-uk-introduce-targeted-prostate-cancer-screening-the-case-for-and-against-267493

October 16, 2025

Putin’s forever war against the west

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

This newsletter was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

There’s an organisation in Russia called the Valdai Discussion Club, a group of public intellectuals that has met since 2004 to discuss the country’s place in the world. It has strong links with government and each year hosts the president, Vladimir Putin, for a day of discussion. This year’s talkfest focused, as Putin put it, on “what is happening in the world, the role of our country in it, and how we see its development prospects”.

And that’s very interesting when you consider the title of the thinktank’s annual report this year, which will particularly appeal to any fans of Dr Strangelove – Dr Chaos or: How to Stop Worrying and Love the Disorder. The report’s basic thesis is that because the west is attempting to inflict, in Putin’s words “a strategic defeat on Russia”, Russia, in turn, must rise to the threat.

One of the ways it can do that, the Valdai Club’s report says, is by recognising that the purpose of conflict is changing and that the “contemporary objective may no longer lie in victories – wherein one party achieves all its goals – but rather in maintaining a balance necessary for a period of relative peaceful development”.

This, writes Stefan Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham, would go a long way towards explaining the low-level but constant hybrid warfare that Russia has been waging against the west for more than a decade now, and which blew up in 2022 into an all-out armed conflict in Ukraine.

This so-called “grey-zone warfare” seems to have become ever-present in Europe in recent months. Interference in elections, Russian warplanes flying into other countries’ airspace, drone incursions forcing airports to close, regular cyber attacks – they all test the resilience and preparedness of Nato, Wolff believes.

In his analysis, winning the war in Ukraine will involve Russia being able to weaken western resolve and unity. And winning the war will demonstrate that it is capable of doing just that. “In this sense,” Wolff writes, “the intensification of the Kremlin’s hybrid war against Kyiv’s European allies is a tool Moscow uses as part of its broader war effort.”

Wolff’s thesis is echoed by Christo Atanasov Kostov, an international relations expert with particular focus on Russia at Schiller International University in Madrid. Kostov analyses Russia’s grey-zone “toolkit”, and concludes: “The Kremlin’s strategy increasingly favours hybrid means – drones, cyberattacks, disinformation, and energy blackmail – over warfare. These are not random provocations, but a coherent campaign of testing.”

Kostov believes that Russia has set out to exhaust the west, not to conquer it. He draws several conclusions as to where this is likely to lead, concluding that an all-out war with Nato is unlikely, “but not unthinkable”. More likely is an escalation into a new cold war across Europe, meaning permanently increased defence budgets and requiring a stronger focus on coordination across Nato, but also stronger European autonomy to compensate for America’s intention to dial down its involvement in the continent’s security.

Europe, writes Kostov, “has to resist the fatigue of endless crisis and demonstrate that resilience, not fear, defines the continent’s future”.

Donald Trump, peacemaker

Vladmir Putin wasn’t among the dignitaries who gathered in Sharm el-Sheikh to sign the “Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity”. This, you’ll remember, is the rather grandiosely titled 642-word statement signed by the US president, Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (the meeting’s host) and a supporting cast of world leaders including UK prime minister Keir Starmer, French president Emmanuel Macron and Canadian prime minister Mark Carney.

The declaration itself was insubstantial. It welcomed the “historic commitment” by all parties to the Trump peace agreement (also known as the Gaza ceasefire deal) and made a joint commitment to “a comprehensive vision of peace, security, and shared prosperity in the region, grounded in the principles of mutual respect and shared destiny”.

Trump had flown to Egypt hot from his appearance at Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, where he took applause from all sides for his achievement in getting Israel and Hamas to agree a ceasefire. The US president was understandably enthusiastic, referring to the “the historic dawn of a new Middle East”.

But is it really? asks David Dunn, a professor of international politics at the University of Birmingham. Dunn felt that the day was more of a performance than anything else. But this in itself might serve a useful purpose. Besides playing to the US president’s well-known love for adulation, as Dunn puts it: “For the US to be openly and obviously committed to the peace process makes it more difficult for the opposing parties to reopen hostilities without the risk of incurring US displeasure for ruining their achievement.”

And for Starmer, Macron, Carney and the rest, who risk being mocked in their own countries as also-rans in the scheme of things, Dunn believes that there’s a purpose to that as well. The more they encourage Trump to see himself in the role of peacemaker and the more he gets to bask in a praise he has rightly earned for the Gaza ceasefire, the greater the chance that he might redouble his efforts to get Russia to see sense over Ukraine.

As he concludes: “If flattering his [Trump’s] ego into directing his energies towards this end achieves this goal, then their part in this iteration of the Trump Show should probably be judged by history as worthwhile.”

As to how long the ceasefire will stick, at the moment that’s changing day by day. We’ll continue to monitor events in Gaza as they unfold. The other big question is whether the Israeli prime minister can survive the peace.

John Strawson, who researches Israeli politics at the University of East London, believes that he’ll be under pressure ahead of an election which must – if peace holds – be held within a year. Some say the ceasefire is bad news for him. He sold the war on the basis it would achieve total victory and annihilate Hamas. And he may struggle to retain the support of his far-right colleagues who wanted Israel to do just that.

But Strawson believes it would be a mistake to underestimate Netanyahu. He’s a wily campaigner who “has made a career out of turning obstacles into opportunities”.

Ibuprofen: how an everyday drug might offer protection against cancer

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

Ibuprofen is a household name – the go-to remedy for everything from headaches to period pain. But recent research suggests this everyday drug might be doing more than easing discomfort. It could also have anti-cancer properties.

As scientists uncover more about the links between inflammation and cancer, ibuprofen’s role is coming under the spotlight – raising intriguing questions about how something so familiar might offer unexpected protection.

Ibuprofen belongs to the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) family. The connection between NSAIDs and cancer prevention isn’t new: as far back as 1983, clinical evidence linked sulindac – an older prescription NSAID similar to ibuprofen – to a reduced incidence of colon cancer in certain patients. Since then, researchers have been investigating whether these drugs could help prevent or slow other cancers too.

NSAIDs work by blocking enzymes called cyclooxygenases (COX). There are two main types. COX-1 helps protect the stomach lining, maintains kidney function, and plays a role in blood clotting. COX-2, on the other hand, drives inflammation.

Most NSAIDs, including ibuprofen, inhibit both, which is why doctors recommend taking them with food rather than on an empty stomach.

Ibuprofen and endometrial cancer

A 2025 study found that ibuprofen may lower the risk of endometrial cancer, the most common type of womb cancer, which starts in the lining of the uterus (the endometrium) and mainly affects women after menopause.

One of the biggest preventable risk factors for endometrial cancer is being overweight or obese, since excess body fat increases levels of oestrogen – a hormone that can stimulate cancer cell growth.

Other risk factors include older age, hormone replacement therapy (particularly oestrogen-only HRT), diabetes, and polycystic ovary syndrome. Early onset of menstruation, late menopause, or not having children also increase risk. Symptoms can include abnormal vaginal bleeding, pelvic pain, and discomfort during sex.

In the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) study, data from more than 42,000 women aged 55–74 was analysed over 12 years. Those who reported taking at least 30 ibuprofen tablets per month had a 25% lower risk of developing endometrial cancer than those taking fewer than four tablets monthly. The protective effect appeared strongest among women with heart disease.

Interestingly, aspirin – another common NSAID – did not show the same association with reduced risk in this or other studies. That said, aspirin may help prevent bowel cancer returning.

Other NSAIDs, such as naproxen, have been studied for preventing colon, bladder, and breast cancers. The effectiveness of these drugs seems to depend on cancer type, genetics, and underlying health conditions.

Ibuprofen’s broader potential

Ibuprofen’s possible cancer-protective effects extend beyond endometrial cancer. Studies suggest it may also reduce risk of bowel, breast, lung, and prostate cancers.

For example, people who previously had bowel cancer and took ibuprofen were less likely to experience recurrence. It has also been shown to inhibit colon cancer growth and survival, and some evidence even suggests a protective effect against lung cancer in smokers.

Inflammation is a hallmark of cancer and ibuprofen is, at its core, anti-inflammatory. By blocking COX-2 enzyme activity, the drug reduces production of prostaglandins, chemical messengers that drive inflammation and cell growth – including cancer cell growth. Lower prostaglandin levels may slow or stop tumour development.

But that’s only part of the story. Ibuprofen also appears to influence cancer-related genes such as HIF-1α, NFκB, and STAT3, which help tumour cells survive in low-oxygen conditions and resist treatment.

Ibuprofen seems to reduce the activity of these genes, making cancer cells more vulnerable. It can also alter how DNA is packaged within cells, potentially making cancer cells more sensitive to chemotherapy.

A word of caution

But not all research points in the same direction. A study involving 7,751 patients found that taking aspirin after an endometrial cancer diagnosis was linked to higher mortality, particularly among those who had used aspirin before diagnosis. Other NSAIDs also appeared to increase cancer-related death risk.

Conversely, a recent review found that NSAIDs, especially aspirin, may reduce the risk of several cancers – though regular use of other NSAIDs could raise the risk of kidney cancer. These conflicting results show how complex the interaction between inflammation, immunity, and cancer really is.

Despite the promise, experts warn against self-medicating with ibuprofen for cancer prevention. Long-term or high-dose NSAID use can cause serious side effects such as stomach ulcers, gut bleeding, and kidney damage.

Less commonly, they may trigger heart problems like heart attacks or strokes. NSAIDs also interact with several medications, including warfarin and certain antidepressants, increasing the risk of bleeding and other complications.

The idea that a humble painkiller could help prevent cancer is both exciting and provocative. If future studies confirm these findings, ibuprofen might one day form part of a broader strategy for reducing cancer risk, especially in high-risk groups.

For now, experts agree it’s wiser to focus on lifestyle-based prevention: eating anti-inflammatory foods, maintaining a healthy weight and staying physically active.

Everyday medicines may yet hold surprising promise, but until the science is settled, the safest prescription for cancer prevention remains the oldest one: eat well, move often, and listen to your doctor before reaching for the pill bottle.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Ibuprofen: how an everyday drug might offer protection against cancer – https://theconversation.com/ibuprofen-how-an-everyday-drug-might-offer-protection-against-cancer-266645

October 16, 2025

Inside the far-right social media ecosystem normalising extremist ideas in UK politics

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ed Harrison, PhD Candidate, Institute for Digital Security and Behaviour, University of Bath

Last September, Reform leader Nigel Farage dismissed a policy of mass deportations as a “political impossibility”. Now, a year on, the party has pledged to deport up to 600,000 illegal migrants and retrospectively strip indefinite leave to remain from people already settled in the UK.

This is a drastic lurch to the right, even for Reform. Only last year the party was saying it seeks to represent the “silent majority” and keep out “extremists”.

In explaining this shift, Reform politicians would probably claim this is what the silent majority wants. They would point to a hardening of public opinion on illegal migration.

They would want to avoid the accusation they have given in to extremists by proposing these policies. Reform has, after all, sought to distance itself from the far-right with every step it takes towards the mainstream.

But an analysis of social media suggests something else. Many people and groups on the radical and far-right are harnessing a process known as audience capture in order to influence political policy.

A group of anonymous X accounts is said to follow a “posting-to-policy” strategy. These accounts – some of which are run by disaffected Westminster professionals – post to inject their grievances into online discourse.

Their goal is to see their narratives circulate and gain popularity within rightwing networks. Once established, they hope political actors, many of whom follow them, will take up the ideas.

Use and discussion of the “Boriswave” is an example of this. The term, which refers to a rise in non-EU immigration under former prime minister Boris Johnson, originated and proliferated from this network. It is now commonly used in the mainstream and was deployed by Reform to justify its proposal to revoke indefinite leave to remain.

Another example is the motability scheme, a programme that helps eligible disabled individuals lease a car. It was first highlighted and heavily criticised by anonymous accounts on X for being wasteful and subject to fraudulent abuse, and has dominated much of the discussion on welfare reform in 2025. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch recently promised to restrict eligibility to the scheme.

While many of these accounts are anonymous, some are more out in the open. Online conservatives such as Connor Tomlinson and Steven Edington have boasted of how their work has helped move Reform to the right.

Further to the online activities of aggrieved anonymous online users and disaffected conservatives, are the cases of ex-Reform politicians MP Rupert Lowe and Advance UK leader Ben Habib. Both left the party in acrimonious circumstances, both now lead alternative movements, and both are pushing Reform to adopt more radical policies.

Lowe has called Reform’s pledge to deport up to 600,000 illegal migrants “pathetic” and has suggested it be quadrupled. Habib attended the far-right Unite the Kingdom protests in September.

Add these forces together and you get what amounts to a rightwing arms race – communities of social media users pushing for more radical policies in an attempt to change the norms and policies of Reform and the right.

How an idea spreads

To explore this dynamic, and how Reform’s recent u-turn has been shaped by it, we analysed the online networks that drove conversation about “mass deportations” on X over the past year. Using computational methods, we identified four distinct sub-communities defined by their retweet relationships. These sub-communities were formed around far-right influencers, radical right influencers, Advance UK/free-marketeer influencers – and around the Reform party.

Reposting network of discussion of mass deportation on X:

A table categorising rightwing voices online. — The online conservative voices influencing Reform policy.
CC BY-ND

Discussion of mass deportations in 2024 was almost exclusively dominated by the far-right and the anonymous accounts of the radical right. Fast forward to April 2025 and we find Lowe, Habib and a wider range of rightwing influencers have entered the conversation in support of the policy.

Finally, in September, following Reform’s August announcement, you can see Farage and key Reform personnel supplant the influencers as players in a movement they had little role in creating. In doing so, the party has aligned itself with a policy that less than a year ago it vehemently rejected.

This offers only a snapshot of discussions on social media and cannot account for the wider political and socioeconomic factors influencing these shifts. It does, however, demonstrate how narratives in far-right and fringe online ecosystems can migrate into more mainstream discourse over time and help shape the norms and policies of whole political movements.

It is difficult to imagine this happening without the new role of X under Elon Musk. With far-right figures now allowed back onto the platform, and the liberalisation of its algorithms to push more extreme content, the result has been the amplification and normalisation of more radical views and rhetoric.

Researchers have highlighted how, as a result of this, social media begins to function like a funhouse mirror, distorting political reality. Because online debate is dominated by a small number of extreme voices (10% of users produce 97% of political content), it projects a skewed and unrepresentative picture of public opinion.

This, in turn, blurs users’ sense of which norms and views are mainstream. The fact that offline, the majority is said to oppose the retrospective removal of indefinite leave to remain, only adds weight to the argument that Reform’s policy shifts are being driven by a small number of influential online voices rather than the voices of the masses.

Where once social media played a role more akin to that of a town hall, allowing people to express their views and support for political parties, it is now increasingly reflective of the strategic activities of a select influential few.

While the extent of this is unclear, we have to wonder if Reform’s perceptions of public opinion are being distorted by the funhouse mirror that X has increasingly become. And while the party is polling ahead of all others, that has implications for the future direction of the UK.

– ref. Inside the far-right social media ecosystem normalising extremist ideas in UK politics – https://theconversation.com/inside-the-far-right-social-media-ecosystem-normalising-extremist-ideas-in-uk-politics-266948

October 16, 2025

Which cooking oil is best? Asking how they’re made could tell you more

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Serge Wich, Professor of Primate Biology, Liverpool John Moores University

Traditional palm oil extraction in Guinea plays important cultural and nutritional roles. Uzabiaga, 2017, Wikimedia Commons.

Vegetable oils are everywhere, and almost everyone has an opinion about them. From clever marketing in supermarket aisles to headlines about deforestation, they have become both the heroes and villains of the modern diet. But vegetable oils are vital to our lives and can help to address food insecurity.

Consumers trying to make ethical and sustainable purchases find themselves at odds with a marketplace where clickbait often masks reality and reliable information about traceability is often missing or hard to find. A pot of “palm-oil-free” peanut butter does not necessarily disclose what the palm oil was replaced with, or how and where the peanuts were produced.

In a market flooded with controversy and conflicting messages, informed consumption is a challenge. Which oils should we really be using and what’s the truth behind their production?

Consumers are entitled to clear ingredient transparency. More accurate information enables us to make choices that genuinely align with our values. Our recent research across three studies explores how nutrition, sustainability and transparency intersect in the world of vegetable oils.

Few foods illustrate the complexity of our global food system quite like vegetable oils. Used in cooking, processed foods, cosmetics, plastics and biodiesel, the global demand has quadrupled in 50 years, making vegetable oils a cornerstone of both diets and economies. An estimated 37% of agricultural crop land is used by oil crops, such as soybean, oil palm, rapeseed and sunflower.

Yet, this demand also drives major health and environmental pressures. With 2 billion more mouths to feed in the coming decades, several hundred million hectares of land – ten times the area of the UK – will need to be allocated to vegetable oil production. Decisions about which crops are used and how they are produced will have critical environmental and social consequences.

Vegetable oil crops, including soy and maize, take up 37% of the world’s agricultural crop land and are among the fastest growing commodities.
Erik Meijaard, CC BY-NC

Don’t call me fat

“Fat” has long-held negative connotations. This has led to extreme health advice calling for anything from the total omission of seed oils to eating a stick of butter as a snack or adding a shot of coconut oil to one’s coffee.

Alongside this, alarmist marketing campaigns have painted certain vegetable oils, most notably palm oil, as the agent of mass extinction and deforestation.

But behind every bottle on a supermarket shelf lies a more complex story: a network of farmers, factories and policies that shape not only what we eat but also how land is used and how livelihoods are sustained.

We need to stop treating dietary fat as a villain. Yes, trans-fats are harmful, but evidence on saturated fats is mixed and context-specific. Frying risks are overlooked and fat replacers are often oversold.

Importantly, a global “fat gap” coexists with obesity – really, some people need more fat in their diet. The idea that some fats are good for you and others aren’t isn’t clear cut.

The consumer blind spot

Claims about the foods we consume can become part of popular discourse. Take WWF’s 2009 claim that 50% of supermarket products contain palm oil. Is it true now? Our findings suggest at least not everywhere.

How easily could it be proved to be true then? Ever? It’s hard to tell, without clear historical evidence of how the original claim was made. But has this claim encouraged millions of consumers to avoid palm oil? Absolutely.

This is not a matter of overturning palm oil’s bad reputation, but one of noting the sheer lack of clarity and transparency in ingredient information. Many food products list only “vegetable oil” without specifying type or origin and sustainability labels are inconsistent and easily manipulated.

This lack of transparency fuels misinformation and prevents consumers from aligning purchases with their values. This fundamentally slows down any efforts from consumers and policymakers to improve sustainability within the food system.

The human dimension: culture and equity

Vegetable oils are more than ingredients. They’re woven into our culture, economies and identity. From palm oil in south-east Asia and west Africa to olive oil in the Mediterranean, their value extends beyond nutrition or environmental metrics.

Which oil a consumer chooses depends on culture, price, taste, and many perception, some better informed than others.
Erik Meijaard, CC BY-NC

In an era of rising food insecurity, affordable oils remain a vital source of nutrition and income for millions. Calls to eliminate certain oils can carry hidden social costs, undermining livelihoods in producing regions. No oil is inherently good or bad.

Rather than asking which oil is best, we should question how our oils are made, who benefits, and which systemic changes truly serve people and the planet.

Ultimately, companies need to disclose sourcing origins and processing methods, and policymakers must mandate labelling that disclose an ingredient’s true environmental and social effects. Only then consumers can know how best to choose a varied mix of traceable oils, without the hype.

Technology such as QR codes and mobile applications can already enable this and by demanding greater traceability, shoppers can help shift towards fairer and more sustainable food systems.

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.

Serge Wich is a professor at Liverpool John Moores University. He receives funding from United Nation Environmental Programme (UNEP) under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Congo Basin Impact Program (PCA/2022/5067) to conduct research on vegetable oils in Central African countries. He is also a member of the IUCN Global Oil Crops Task Force.

Erik Meijaard works for Borneo Futures and consults to Soremartec SA and Soremartec Italia, Ferrero Group, in the framework of its Sustainable Nutrition Scientific Board. Erik co-chairs the IUCN Global Oil Crops Task Force. We thank Emily Meijaard for developing the initial pitch and story line.

– ref. Which cooking oil is best? Asking how they’re made could tell you more – https://theconversation.com/which-cooking-oil-is-best-asking-how-theyre-made-could-tell-you-more-267266

October 16, 2025

The real reason abolishing stamp duty won’t help first-time buyers

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nigel Gilbert, Professor of Sociology, University of Surrey

Scrapping stamp duty may sound like a quick fix to Britain’s housing crisis, but there’s reason to believe it would barely move the needle on affordability – while costing the Treasury billions.

At the Conservative party conference, leader Kemi Badenoch announced that a future Tory government would abolish stamp duty for people buying their main home. Badenoch called stamp duty “tax on aspiration” that traps families and holds back social mobility.

But research we conducted with colleagues casts doubt on this claim. We tested it using a detailed computer model of the English housing market. Our results told a different story.

Our simulation found that removing stamp duty, which the Tories themselves estimated would cost between £9 billion and £11 billion a year in lost revenue, would make almost no difference to house prices, rents or people’s ability to buy a home. It might be politically attractive, but the proposal would deliver little benefit to those most in need of help and would hand the biggest savings to wealthier buyers.

To understand why, it is helpful to examine what stamp duty actually does. Buyers in England and Northern Ireland pay the tax on property purchases above £125,000, with rates increasing for more expensive homes. (Scotland and Wales now have their own systems.)

The logic of abolishing it is simple enough: if you cut upfront costs, more people can afford to move. But our research shows this doesn’t translate into meaningful change.

We built an agent-based computer model that simulates the behaviour of thousands of virtual households across England. These digital households vary in income, family size, tenure and employment status. They make realistic decisions about saving, renting, buying and selling property over time. The model mirrors how the market behaves when conditions change, such as when interest rates rise or a tax is removed.

When we ran the model without stamp duty for main homes, very little changed. Buyers could save for a deposit slightly faster because they no longer needed to set aside money for the tax. But the overall patterns of prices and transactions remained almost identical to the current system.

In other words, removing stamp duty gave households a modest short-term boost without altering the deeper forces that shape the market.

Rising deposits

For most people, the real barrier to home ownership is the deposit, not the tax. The average first-time buyer now needs around £60,000 to put down a deposit, while abolishing stamp duty would save them only a few thousand pounds. It’s the difference between climbing a mountain and skipping the last step.

More importantly, the benefits of scrapping stamp duty wouldn’t be shared evenly. Buyers of high-value homes, who currently face rates as high as 12%, would gain the most.

First-time buyers and those buying modest properties would see only a small difference. That makes the policy regressive – it helps those already well-off far more than those struggling to get on the ladder.

Our model also highlights how tightly connected the housing system is. Changes in one part of the market ripple through others. If more affluent buyers rush to buy expensive homes, prices can rise further up the chain, offsetting any small gains made lower down. Renters, meanwhile, would see no direct benefit.

cover of the daily express showing conservative leader kemi badenoch and a headline about plans to abolish stamp duty — Conservatives knew the stamp duty pledge would grab headlines.
Steve Travelguide/Shutterstock

This complexity explains why policies that look straightforward, often disappoint in practice. Housing markets are shaped by multiple factors: interest rates, planning restrictions, the supply of new homes and people’s incomes. Tweaking a single tax rarely shifts the overall picture.

The findings underline a broader point about policymaking. Governments often announce headline-grabbing tax cuts or incentives without fully testing their effects. But simulation models like ours can provide a powerful way to forecast outcomes before they happen in the real world.

They allow researchers to explore how thousands of households, landlords and lenders interact, revealing unintended consequences that might otherwise be missed.

In this case, the message is clear: abolishing stamp duty might sound like a lifeline for aspiring homeowners, but it’s unlikely to change who can actually afford to buy. The real solutions lie elsewhere: in building more homes, addressing stagnant wages and improving access to affordable credit.

The housing crisis is one of the defining challenges of our time. Quick fixes make for good headlines, but data-driven evidence should guide decisions that affect millions of people. Before policymakers reach for the next easy answer, they would do well to test whether it’s genuinely likely to work.

Nigel Gilbert receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. He is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering.

Corinna Elsenbroich receives funding from UKRI. She is a member of the Labour Party.

Yahya Gamal (Yahya Gamalaldin) receives funding from UKRI.

– ref. The real reason abolishing stamp duty won’t help first-time buyers – https://theconversation.com/the-real-reason-abolishing-stamp-duty-wont-help-first-time-buyers-267584

October 16, 2025

Guillermo de Toro’s Frankenstein: beguiling adaptation stays true to heart of Mary Shelley’s story

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sharon Ruston, Professor of English and Creative Writing, Lancaster University

Frankenstein has clearly been a labour of love for the director Guillermo del Toro. I am editing Frankenstein for The Oxford Complete Works of Mary Shelley so have spent a lot of time with her tale too. While del Toro’s deviates in noticeable but interesting ways from Shelley’s novel, the film remains true to the heart of her story with its obvious compassion and empathy for the Creature created in an unorthodox experiment by a young scientist.

The film is grand and lush, the costumes are incredibly opulent, the settings awe-inspiring, and the score emotional. I watched it in a sold out 600+ seat cinema in Manchester, filled with a young audience mainly in their 20s and late teens who laughed, cried and winced along with the action on screen.

It is divided into two parts – scientist Victor Frankenstein’s (Oscar Issac) narrative and then the Creature’s (Jacob Elordi) narrative – framed by and interspersed with the story of a ship caught in the ice and a captain faced with mutinous sailors who want to give up on their foolhardy mission and return home. This very much follows Shelley’s original tale.

A cartoon of undertakers in wigs. — A Consultation of Physicians, or The Company of Undertakers is an engraving by the English artist William Hogarth that satirises the medical profession.
Wellcome

The main narrative in the film has been moved to 1857; Shelley’s book is set in the 1790s. This enables a far greater range of technology to be employed – from early photography, flushable toilets, and gigantic voltaic piles, which were the first electrical batteries.

However, many scenes evoke earlier times, such as the gowns and wigs of the medical professionals who reject Victor Frankenstein’s heretical experiments with corpses. These have an 18th-century aesthetic, wearing large white wigs like those depicted in William Hogarth’s 1736 engraving A Consultation of Physicians, or The Company of Undertakers.

The film makes full use of historical medical knowledge. For example, one breakthrough in Victor’s experiments comes when he is given a map of the lymphatic system, which is said to be the fifth long lost Evelyn Table. The real four tables are from 17th-century Italy and were an educational tool to demonstrate the vein, artery and nervous systems. Famously, these wooden boards were pasted with real human tissue.

Just as the surgeon who gathered the material for the Evelyn Tables is unlikely to have asked for the patient’s consent before their death, Victor is relentless in his search for body parts to build his monster. One of the most visceral scenes is of him surrounded by piles of heads, legs, and other human parts, sawing off what he intends to use, and lugging sacks of unwanted bits of bodies to be slung into the gutter.

Throughout, Victor is brilliant but single-minded to the point of monomania. He is likened, as he is in the novel’s subtitle, to the mythological figure Prometheus who stole fire from the gods to give to humans. But, unlike Prometheus, Victor’s actions seem to lack much altruistic purpose.

The one character who sees through him is Elizabeth Lavenza (Mia Goth), newly imagined as the intended wife of Victor’s brother William (Felix Kammerer). Elizabeth in this version is herself an amateur entomologist (a scientist who studies insects). Her scarab necklace, with its Egyptian symbolism, is a symbol of renewal and rebirth – a symbol of her affinity with creatures that are often misunderstood.

Del Toro creates animosity between Victor and his father Leopold (Charles Dance) to prepare us for the inadequacies of Victor’s relationship with his creation. He also leans into the theory that Victor and his Creature are doubles. Nowhere is this more clear than when the scientist identifies himself as Victor and the monster applies that name to himself. Both characters also emit the same animalistic growl when they are angry.

There are also visual signs of this doubling. At first, the monster is practically naked bar a few bandages until he acquires a long coat from a fallen soldier and other swaddling layers, which only enhances his formidable size.

When Victor begins to hunt the Creature, he is dressed in a similarly huge fur coat. His gait is ambling, much like the creatures in his first steps, as he drags his prosthetic leg across the snow in pursuit. Their resemblance seems to signify a merging of identities. It is difficult to know who is the hunter and who is hunted.

Created from a process declared unholy, obscene and an abomination, and declared by Victor to be a mistake, the Creature endures. In fact, as it all ends we are left with a final close up of the monster’s face, cementing del Toro’s sympathy with the Creature.

In the film, the Creature is, throughout, afraid, attempting to be gentle, wanting to find affection at the hands of the humans he encounters but most often instead encounters pain and suffering. Ultimately, he is not of “the same nature” as humans, which allows for some intriguing differences.

Despite this, he insists that he is not a “something” but a “someone”. Those watching will be left with the Creature’s words reverberating in their heads, words which shine a harsh light on us all: “the world will hunt you and kill you just for being who you are.”

Sharon Ruston 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. Guillermo de Toro’s Frankenstein: beguiling adaptation stays true to heart of Mary Shelley’s story – https://theconversation.com/guillermo-de-toros-frankenstein-beguiling-adaptation-stays-true-to-heart-of-mary-shelleys-story-267570

October 16, 2025

Drought, sand storms and evacuations: how Iran’s climate crisis gets ignored

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sanam Mahoozi, PhD Candidate Journalism, City St George’s, University of London

Iran and Israel fought a 12-day war in June. Although a ceasefire was declared the same month, news coverage of Iran continues to focus on the conflict’s aftermath and the Middle East’s tense political situation.

Meanwhile, Tehran – home to more than 10 million people – is facing one of its worst water shortages in decades. Dams near the capital are at their lowest levels for nearly 70 years – the Karaj dam (one of the city’s major suppliers), which has 25 million cubic metres of water storage, is 86% empty.

In the centre of the country, the city of Isfahan is sinking as subsidence swallows cars and pedestrians. Land subsidence is mainly caused by over-extraction of ground water for agriculture – more than 90% of Iran’s water is extracted for agricultural use. Many of Iran’s iconic lakes have turned into a bed of salt.

Even though schools and roads in Tehran were evacuated in September due to their risk of collapsing, international media coverage of this major environmental problem remains alarmingly low – limited mostly to local and Persian-language diaspora outlets.

Earlier this year, the country’s southern provinces were blanketed by sand and dust storms that sent thousands to hospitals and disrupted infrastructure. Again, this went mostly unreported outside Iran.

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.

There has also been little international coverage of the environmental impact of the war on Iran.

In contrast, local media have reported that Israel’s missile attacks on oil depots close to Tehran released 47,000 tons of greenhouse gases into the city’s atmosphere, causing air pollution. They claimed surface and groundwater systems, soil and wider ecosystems have all been damaged by the leakage of industrial wastewater, urban sewage and other forms of pollution including noise, vibration, radiation and heat – all of which pose a threat to the lives of humans, animals and plants.

For months, international news outlets have focused their coverage of Iran on questions about its nuclear programme and worsening ties with the west. They have covered espionage, sanctions, cybersecurity and Iranian officials’ statements about uranium enrichment and nuclear weapons.

This is not surprising. An analysis by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford found that newsrooms covering the Middle East will mainly report on war and conflict. Other academic studies underline that long-term but far-reaching environmental issues are far down their list of priorities.

Iran is being hit by a major drought.

Even inside Iran, the news media has largely concentrated on the war. During the conflict, conservative Iranian state-affiliated news outlets such as Tasnim, Mizan and Kayhan focused almost entirely on military developments and official narratives of “national defence” and “foreign threats.”

But when the fighting ended, some Iranian newspapers, particularly those which advocate for gradual social, political and press freedom (along with the state-run IRNA news agency), started to cover the drought and water shortages. The conservative Iranian news media outlets are now covering these stories a little, but less so than the reformist media, such as Payamema and Shargh.

Today, the Middle East faces some of the world’s worst environmental crises — including droughts, floods, sand and dust storms with enormous consequences. Across Iran’s provinces, many rivers and wetlands have dried up. Air pollution is getting worse and power cuts are devastating lives and livelihoods.

What does the world know?

My research looks at how the media reports climate change across the Middle East and North Africa, and particularly in Iran.

I also write for news organisations about water and climate change. In doing this research, I have found that Iran’s environmental problems are largely driven by decades of government mismanagement and the overexploitation of water resources — including excessive dam construction and groundwater use for agriculture.

Even on the few occasions when international media outlets have covered Iran’s water crisis in recent months, the lead section of the coverage is often tied to the war. While reporting on war is essential to expose its human costs and security, environmental coverage is equally important. Climate change will not pause for a ceasefire, and neglecting it risks overlooking a crisis that affects everyone.

Sanam Mahoozi 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. Drought, sand storms and evacuations: how Iran’s climate crisis gets ignored – https://theconversation.com/drought-sand-storms-and-evacuations-how-irans-climate-crisis-gets-ignored-266725