Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Athina Vlachantoni, Professor of Gerontology and Social Policy, University of Southampton

About two-thirds of people in the UK will become grandparents during their lifetime. Half of those grandparents will provide some form of care to their grandchildren. But who makes up that half depends on a number of factors. One of these is ethnicity.

Understanding the extent to which parents from different communities in society rely on other people – such as paid-for childcare or their own parents – for the care of their children is an important question from a number of perspectives.

It tells us about the demographic composition of society. It reflects embedded cultural norms and expectations about caring for young children in the family.

Our analysis of the UK’s largest household dataset, the UK Household Longitudinal Study, showed that parents from Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and African communities were less likely to use childcare provided by other people, including grandparents, than parents from white British communities. The reasons behind these differences are complex and could relate to other aspects of their lives.

To start with, employment rates among people – particularly women – from minority ethnic communities are lower on average than those of people from white British backgrounds. This could point to parents from minority ethnic communities being more likely to be available to provide care for their children, and having less need to rely on grandparents.

Nearly two-thirds of children in the white British group have a working mother, compared to 17% of children from Bangladeshi families. This means that white British mothers are more likely to depend on childcare, including from grandparents.

What’s more, the Office for National Statistics has shown that workers from Asian and Black communities were less likely than white workers to be managers, directors or senior officials. Workers from Black communities were more likely to work in caring, leisure and other service occupations.

This suggests that people from ethic minority backgrounds may have less disposable income to spend on paid childcare. They therefore may take time off work to look after children rather than looking to grandparents to fill in the gaps between periods of paid childcare.

However, these differences could also point to cultural norms within different communities. Our research shows that only Caribbean parents were more likely than white British parents to use childcare – defined as care for the child by anyone other than the parent or their partner. However, this care is less likely to be from grandparents than it is for white British and other ethnic groups.

Cultural reasons about who should care for young children could also interact with demographic and socio-economic factors to result in ethnic differences.

For example, our research also showed that 28% of white British children have no siblings, compared to 13% and 15% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children. Having more children could lead to their mother spending more time looking after children at home, with less need to rely on grandparents.

Another explanation may relate to grandparents’ health. Research from the University of Southampton’s Centre for Research on Ageing has shown that – despite years of targeted governmental efforts – ethnic differences in health in later life remain.

For example, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi men are between two and four times more likely to report their health as limiting their typical activities than white British men. Pakistani women are 11 times more likely to report limiting health than white British women.

This means that grandparents from ethnic minority backgrounds are less likely to be in good health. They may be physically less able to look after children than grandparents from white British communities.

However, in countries such as the UK, where the average cost of paid-for childcare is relatively high, the availability of grandparental childcare could form a pivotal way to allow working-age parents to enter and stay in the labour market for longer.

It’s also worth considering that providing childcare can take a toll on grandparents. It has a benefit for wellbeing for grandmothers, but only for the first grandchild.

Grandparental childcare is an important part of the caring ecosystem for many families in the UK. Closer attention to grandparent care and how it is experienced differently in different ethnic communities can offer a more nuanced understanding of healthy ageing, family bonds and labour market participation.

Athina Vlachantoni receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council.

Maria Evandrou receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. White British families more likely to depend on grandparents for childcare – our research explores why – https://theconversation.com/white-british-families-more-likely-to-depend-on-grandparents-for-childcare-our-research-explores-why-253177

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rahul Sidhu, PhD Candidate, Neuroscience, University of Sheffield

Alzheimer’s is a disease that robs people of their memory, and scientists have long sought ways to stop or reverse its effects. But the blood-brain barrier – the brain’s protective shield – has been both a friend and a foe. While it keeps harmful substances out, it also blocks many treatments from getting in.

Now researchers are trying a different approach. Rather than bypassing the barrier, they’re learning to work with it.

A new study shows that a single injection of specially designed nanoparticles can dramatically reduce levels of a toxic protein in the brains of mice. The protein, called beta-amyloid, is a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. It forms sticky clumps that disrupt communication between brain cells and trigger damage.

The innovation doesn’t attack the protein head-on. Instead, it targets the brain’s blood vessels, essentially reprogramming their transport systems to carry the toxic protein out of the brain.

Scientists at the Institute for Bioengineering of Catalonia in Spain and Sichuan University in China, created tiny nanoparticles coated with a molecule called angiopep 2. This molecule latches onto LRP1, a protein that naturally helps move beta-amyloid out of the brain and into the bloodstream.

The key lies in precision. The researchers had to attach exactly the right number of angiopep 2 molecules to each particle. Too few, and nothing happens. Too many, and the LRP1 protein gets pulled inside cells and destroyed. Get it just right, and LRP1 guides beta-amyloid across blood vessel walls and out of the brain.

When tested in mice genetically engineered to develop Alzheimer’s-like changes, a single injection decreased beta-amyloid levels in the brain by 45% within two hours. At the same time, the protein surged in the blood, showing it was being actively transported out. Brain scans confirmed the shift.

The benefits went beyond just reducing toxic protein. Tests showed that treated mice performed as well as healthy mice on learning and memory tasks. They also regained interest in everyday activities like building nests and choosing sweetened water – subtle signs their brains were functioning better.

Microscope images revealed how the treatment worked. After injection, more LRP1 proteins appeared on blood vessel surfaces, and fewer were being sent to the cell’s “recycling bins”. Other proteins shifted to favour routes that carry materials across blood vessel walls. In essence, the brain’s natural clearance system was being restored.

Most Alzheimer’s treatments focus on breaking down plaques or preventing their formation. Antibody therapies like lecanemab and donanemab can slow cognitive decline modestly, but they require repeated doses and carry risks such as brain swelling.

Other approaches aim to protect neurons or reduce inflammation. But few target the blood vessels themselves. This new method doesn’t bypass the blood-brain barrier – it repairs and reprogrammes it. The barrier becomes part of the treatment, not just an obstacle.

However, there are important caveats. The experiments involved only a few mice, and some statistical analyses may not fully account for repeated measurements from the same animals. The mice also carried genes linked to a rare, inherited form of Alzheimer’s, which doesn’t reflect how the disease typically develops in humans.

Mouse brains and blood vessels aren’t identical to human ones. What works in mice doesn’t always translate to people. These results need repeating in larger studies, and significant research lies ahead before this approach could be tested in humans.

Conceptual shift

Despite the limitations, the research represents a conceptual shift. Rather than viewing the blood-brain barrier as a wall to overcome, scientists are learning to harness it. If similar strategies work in humans, they could offer a new way to slow or even reverse aspects of Alzheimer’s by focusing on the brain’s own transport systems.

It also opens broader possibilities. Many neurological conditions involve disruptions in blood vessels or blood-brain barrier function. Learning to work with blood vessels could have implications far beyond Alzheimer’s.

For patients, this offers a glimpse of a future where brain blood vessels aren’t passive tubes, but active partners in treatment. The study provides proof of concept for a potential new class of therapies. But translating success from a handful of mice to human patients will require much more work.

Rahul Sidhu 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. New nanoparticle treatment helps brain to clear toxic Alzheimer’s proteins in mice – https://theconversation.com/new-nanoparticle-treatment-helps-brain-to-clear-toxic-alzheimers-proteins-in-mice-267254

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Francesco Grillo, Academic Fellow, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University

“The European green deal is something we owe to our children because we do not own this planet.” These words date back to a few days before Christmas 2019. They defined Ursula Von Der Leyen’s first presidency of the European Commission but belong to what now seems like a different era.

Now, six years later, after the COVID-19 pandemic and one (still ongoing) war in Europe, what is left of the European green deal? How can we fix what does remain of it? And why are European voters suffering “climate fatigue” if climate change is accelerating? These are some of the questions that a forthcoming conference in Venice will try to address.

Acting to ensure the planet is habitable for our children is undoubtedly a moral imperative. However, for the EU it is one that requires at least two distinct (albeit connected) strategies.

The first is reducing greenhouse emissions in Europe. The second is convincing the rest of the world to do something with the 94% of the CO₂ emissions that are produced outside Europe.

The history of the last ten years shows relative success on the former but far less on the latter. This may go some way to explaining why European voters are becoming frustrated – they feel they are doing their part and yet find themselves exposed to a crisis that is largely generated elsewhere.

Since the Paris agreement, which promised net zero CO₂ emissions by 2050, the world has increased its pollution by 10%. In that time, the EU has cut its own by 13%. That said, Europe had started down this path long before it was binded into action by the Paris agreement. It had already cut emissions by 20% between 1990 and 2016.

Much of this progress is due to Europe’s comparatively weak economic growth and the pressure on European industries to avoid the costs of energy imports. According to a recently published paper the EU has done better than anybody else (if we consider the last 25 years) in terms of raising the percentage of energy consumption coming from renewables – even if it lags behind China on electrification.

This is a strong result but the EU has missed a number of important innovation trends that would aid the transition and reshape its economy in the process. China is still the greatest polluter but it is dominating parts of the renewables supply chain.

The EU dominates the ranking when it comes to the share of energy consumption coming from renewables. And yet it is China that dominates the supply of both solar panels and wind turbines.

Climate leadership

More worryingly, the EU has done very little to influence the speed at which the rest of the world is dealing with emissions. It should have made more of its emissions successes as a diplomacy tool to urge others to speed up their own transitions but it continues to struggle to find its place in a rapidly changing world.

Europe has often aligned itself with its greatest ally, the United States – such as in debates around the creation of the fund meant to compensate developing countries for “loss and damages” from climate change.

With the US now disengaging, Europe will be forced to find new partners at the next COP – and it does not appear to have come to terms with this challenge. In a recent example, Wopke Hoekstra, the EU climate commissioner, hit out at China for failing to set sufficiently ambitious climate targets while the EU has failed to set out its own.

Climate change doesn’t divide the world into good and bad – it separates the innovators from the defenders of the status quo. EU policymakers have mistakenly viewed climate change as merely a bill to pay rather than a chance to change. It focuses on regulations that companies and citizens need to comply with rather than the investments needed for creating endogenous industries and technologies.

This approach has backfired. Recent elections appear to have punished green parties and rewarded climate sceptics. However, European climate fatigue is at least not about denying climate change itself so much as questioning the approach being taken. That is something to work with. But Europe needs new ideas – and they may have to come from outside the Brussels bubble.

Francesco Grillo is affiliated with Vision, the think tank.

– ref. Climate change divides the innovators from the defenders of the status quo – Europe must decide which it wants to be – https://theconversation.com/climate-change-divides-the-innovators-from-the-defenders-of-the-status-quo-europe-must-decide-which-it-wants-to-be-267355

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aviva Guttmann, Lecturer in Strategy and Intelligence, Aberystwyth University

When Israel launched its attacks on Iran in the early morning of June 13, many news reports marvelled at the quality and ingenuity of its intelligence agencies in enabling the Israel Defense Forces to strike with such precision. But one element was not talked about in any detail: Israel’s network of relationships with other countries’ intelligence agencies and their contribution to these covert operations.

This cooperation, while critical, can come with a price. It inevitably means a degree of reliance on other countries. Intelligence partners can decide to stop cooperation at any point, which would leave Israel vulnerable to geopolitical shifts that could threaten these relationships and limit its striking capacities.

June’s surgical military interventions against Iran concluded a round of successes against its regional foes. These included the pager attack against Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as assassinations of top Hamas officials, including its political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Iran in July 2024.

All three of Israel’s security agencies were involved: Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency; Shin Bet, its domestic intelligence agency; and Aman, Israel’s military intelligence division.

Media reports from specialist journalists have revealed some impressive technological advancements. These included using artificial intelligence (AI) to sift through and connect millions of data points to determine targets. Israeli intelligence analysts also used spyware to hack into the phones of the bodyguards of Iranian leaders.

Aman and Mossad have also been adept at recruiting commandos from within local opposition groups. It used these to knock out Iranian air defence installations in the early hours of the first day of the attack.

Israel’s intelligence services are also very good at letting people know just how accomplished they are. It all burnishes their reputation. But much of the time those accomplishments are earned with the help of intelligence from friendly services.

This is nothing new, as I discovered while researching my recent book about Operation Wrath of God. This was the campaign of retribution that followed the Black September murder of members of the Israeli Olympics team at the 1972 summer games in Munich.

While searching the Swiss national archives, I found a large cache of encrypted telegrams that had been shared in a network called Kilowatt. This network involved 18 countries and shared information such as the movements of specific Palestinian people identified as terrorists, including the safe houses and vehicles they used.

Mossad was part of Kilowatt and could use the intelligence it received from European partners to plan and carry out its targeted assassinations in Europe. There is also ample evidence in the cables that western governments knew what Mossad was using the intelligence for.

Israel’s global net of spy friends

The US has historically always been one of the closest intelligence partners of Israeli intelligence. According to studies by the Israeli investigative journalist Ronen Bergman and the American journalist Jefferson Morley, an expert on the CIA, this intelligence-sharing liaison dates back to the early 1950s.

There are numerous cases of Israel calling on US assistance in carrying out targeted assassinations. This relationship endures to this day. Most recently, immediately after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, US intelligence dispatched a special unit to assist the IDF in the war in Gaza and established intelligence-sharing channels with Israel to help locate top Hamas commanders.

Mossad has also worked with Arab intelligence agencies over the years. Meir Dagan, the director of Mossad from 2002 to 2011, set up a highly effective regional spy network during his tenure. Bergman has documented how this network enabled Israeli intelligence to significantly extend its operational reach. This enabled Mossad and Aman to identify, track and strike at targets in Lebanon and Syria.

These relationships operate despite Arab countries often outwardly condemning the actions of Israeli governments at the UN. For example, the Washington Post recently reported Arab states actually expanded their security and intelligence cooperation with Israel.

While talking about “genocide” in Gaza, countries such as Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were sharing data. This relationship also involved cooperation with the Five Eyes intelligence partnership of the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

According to documents obtained by journalists, the partnership, which was named the “Regional Security Construct” by the US, began in 2022 and continued even after Israel began its military operation in Gaza. But Israel’s strike on Qatar in early September, in an attempt to kill senior Hamas representatives meeting there, threatened to disrupt the partnership.

It is thought that anger from Gulf states after the attack was a key factor in focusing US pressure on Israel to agree to make a deal in Gaza. Cooperating to combat the regional threat from Iran is clearly one thing. Threatening the security of Qatar, an important player and key US ally in the Gulf region, is quite another.

Israel’s much-vaunted intelligence capabilities have always relied on some help from its friends. That is unlikely to change. The critical question is the extent to which it can retain the trust of its covert allies. As the past has shown, even in a climate of condemnation and isolation, intelligence cooperation with Israel has remained unaffected.

Strong intelligence connections have often helped overcome moments of crisis. Informal intelligence-sharing arrangements with regional powers, which are kept entirely secret, plausibly denied, and minimally documented, are thus especially crucial now as the region looks to heal its wounds after two years of bitter conflict.

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

– ref. How Israel’s famed intelligence agencies have always relied on help from their friends – https://theconversation.com/how-israels-famed-intelligence-agencies-have-always-relied-on-help-from-their-friends-264818

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marie Inger Dam, Researcher, Biotechnology, Lund University

A single “sexy” gene could help us combat one of the world’s most destructive fruit pests. By deleting the gene that lets female moths produce their mating scent, colleagues and I created an “unsexy” moth – and showed one way to turn insect attraction into a powerful pest control tool.

You’ve probably seen moths flittering around a bright lamppost on a balmy summer night. Those same insects, in their larval form, are the worms that burrow into your apples and peaches, making them serious pests in agriculture.

Moths are usually controlled with chemical pesticides, but pests evolve resistance and these sprays also harm bees and other pollinators. We need new and more sustainable methods to protect important crops targeted by moth larvae, like apples, maize, tomatoes and rice.

In a new study published in the Journal of Chemical Ecology, colleagues and I have demonstrated a way to unravel sexual communication in insects and provide a more sustainable alternative to pesticides. It seems we can stop moths by using their natural instincts against them.

Moths find their mates through chemical communication. Female moths release a species-specific pheromone, which males can detect and follow over long distances.

Farmers have long used synthetic versions of these pheromones to lure male moths away from females so that they don’t reproduce. But the problem is, every species has its own unique blend of pheromones, and replicating the exact recipe in a factory can be costly.

To achieve pheromone-based control on a large-scale, we need to understand how insects make them in the first place – and find the genes responsible.

How we found the sexy gene

Our study focused on the oriental fruit moth (Grapholita molesta), a serious pest on peaches, apples and other fruit. We wanted to identify the gene responsible for making its pheromone.

Pheromones are made from fatty acids by a specific enzyme. To find the genetic material responsible for that enzyme, we needed to identify the fatty acid, the enzyme and eventually the gene.

The fatty acids from which moth pheromones are derived are the same ones that all organisms make in abundance – like the fats in cooking oils and butter.

We first found the small fatty acid that served as the raw material for the moths’ scent, using a technique called gas chromatography, which separates fatty acids based on their size. When we placed this particular fatty acid onto the moth’s pheromone gland, it was converted into the pheromone, confirming we had the right starting point.

Next, we needed to find the exact enzyme that turned that specific fatty acid into that specific pheromone. The key was a double bond between two carbon atoms – that’s a job done by enzymes called desaturases. Searching the moth’s DNA we found many desaturase genes, but only one that was active in females but not in males. This looked like the right gene.

Creating an unsexy moth

To test the gene’s function, we used Crispr – a precise gene-editing tool sometimes described as “genetic scissors” – to delete the suspected desaturase gene in moth eggs. When the moths grew into adults, females without the gene could no longer produce their pheromone, confirming it as the crucial link in their sexual communication.

Silencing this single gene meant we’d effectively created an “unsexy” moth – one that couldn’t hope to attract a mate. Our method can also be applied to different species, including other pest moths that make similar pheromones.

Pest control with insect genes

Chemical pesticides remain the main defence against crop pests, but resistance is spreading fast and pesticides are linked to soil contamination, pollinator declines and more.

Pheromone-based pest control avoids these problems. When synthetic pheromones are spread in a field or orchard, males become confused because they follow the synthetic trails instead of those made by the female moth, reducing their breeding success.

Our “unsexy” moths helped us identify the exact gene behind this mating signal. Knowing which gene produces the pheromone means we can now reproduce the pheromone outside the insect – for example, by inserting the gene into yeast or plants that act as “biofactories”.

These engineered organisms can then produce the pheromone naturally and cheaply, the same way we use genetically modified yeast to make medicines like insulin.

Our discovery connects lab research to real-world pest management: by decoding the moth’s love signal, we’ve taken a step towards greener, gene-based production of pheromones that could one day replace chemical pesticides.

Marie Inger Dam is a co-inventor on several patent applications relating to pheromone production.

– ref. We created an ‘unsexy’ moth that could be the key to greener pest control – https://theconversation.com/we-created-an-unsexy-moth-that-could-be-the-key-to-greener-pest-control-266312

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Neil Ward, Professor of Rural and Regional Development at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia

In 2022, six days before Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine and destabilised energy and food supplies, my colleagues and I started building a network of researchers, practitioners and policymakers to identify ways to create a more sustainable future for the UK food system. Three years later and this network has more than 3,000 members.

The UK’s food system is facing mounting pressures from the effects of climate change, increasing geopolitical instability and concerns about its impact on economic productivity and the environment. So how can we strengthen the resilience of our system when the future looks so uncertain?

Sticking with the status quo is not an option. Large-scale change is inevitable over the next two decades, especially as the effects of climate change continue to unfold.

We have developed four plausible scenarios for what the UK food system might look like in a net zero 2050, each with different socio-economic conditions.

What if Trump returned to power or not? What if geopolitics became more, or less, unstable? What would happen if the rule-based system of international trade broke down or was strengthened? We used these scenarios to stretch thinking beyond business-as-usual assumptions, and analysed the implications for food production, consumption and land use.

---

Read more:
By changing our diets now, we can avoid the food chaos that climate change is bringing

---

The food system accounts for about a quarter of the emissions produced within the UK. This proportion will grow in the coming decades as energy, transport and buildings steadily decarbonise.

Our modelling yielded some inescapable home truths. We will need to change not just how we farm, but what farming produces and what we eat. And land use will need to change to strengthen carbon sequestration along with our ability to adapt to climate change. Three types of transformation are required.

First, strengthening the resilience of UK farming will require that farmers have a clear direction of travel, as they did after the second world war. Then, a technological revolution supported by guaranteed prices helped raised productivity. Now, adopting low-carbon technologies will only get us so far, and we will need to manage what is produced and consumed in a more joined up way, if we are to become less reliant on imports while freeing up some land for other vital uses.

Farm livestock production takes up 85% of agricultural land when growing animal feed is factored in. That limits the scope to strengthen the resilience of the system. Radically expanding horticultural production, for example, by growing more vegetables and salad crops could significantly improve our food self-sufficiency.

Second, farmers and landowners will be in the vanguard of sequestering carbon and helping the UK adapt to climate change through land use change – by planting trees and managing land to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The UK is much less wooded than the rest of Europe, but growing more native trees will bring benefits for farming, including shelter for animals and less soil erosion, and for rural economies through green jobs.

We need to more actively plan land-use change to better balance food production with other valuable environmental services from the land. For example, a more mixed and wooded farm landscape can reduce flood risk and water pollution. Smarter, more integrated land use means managing land for multiple benefits rather than narrow goals.

Third, encouraging dietary change can bring opportunities for growing and marketing new foodstuffs and help reduce the negative economic consequences of unhealthy diets. More fruit, vegetables and legumes are a win-win for people’s health and planetary sustainability, as the recent report from the EAT Lancet Commission demonstrated.

At a junction

Our network has produced a roadmap with phased measures through the 2020s, 2030s and 2040s.

In the two decades after the second world war, the UK food system transformed. Today, system-wide changes are happening in the energy and transport sectors. Now, it’s time to plan the transformation of our food system.

That starts with strengthening the resilience of our farming in the face of climate change and geopolitical uncertainties. Our three core transformations would bring social and economic benefits, improved public health and environmental quality – as well as a more diverse and attractive countryside.

---

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.

---

Neil Ward receives funding from UK Research and Innovation.

He is a member of the Labour Party and the National Trust.

– ref. Three ways to make the UK’s food system more resilient – according to new report by 150 experts – https://theconversation.com/three-ways-to-make-the-uks-food-system-more-resilient-according-to-new-report-by-150-experts-265603

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

Following the Middle East summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire deal has been compared in the media to the Good Friday agreement which brought an end to the conflict in Northern Ireland and the Dayton accords which achieved a (so far) lasting peace in the Balkans. The fact is that Trump’s deal differs significantly from both.

It is largely imposed from the outside. It’s highly transactional in nature. And it lacks a clear blueprint as to what happens next.

But it’s worth noting that one of the defining things about the US president as a politician is the way that he will typically make an exaggerated claim about an achievement which then sets the framing for the rest of the world to react to. So he boasted of his ceasefire deal that it was “not only the end of war, this is the end of the age of terror and death”.

Others have run with the Good Friday agreement comparison. The Christian Science Monitor asserted on October 2, the day after the US president unveiled his 20-point plan: “Mr. Trump’s blueprint rests on the hope that what worked in Northern Ireland will work in Gaza, and on one assumption above all: that Israelis and Palestinians are ready to accept that continued violence won’t get either of them what they want.”

This, of course, is no small assumption, nor is there anything to suggest it has any foundation.

What has been agreed between Israel and Hamas is an end to the fighting and the release of prisoners and hostages. But serious obstacles remain. The disarmament of Hamas is by no means a done deal (in fact it looks less likely by the day).

Meanwhile the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza also looks to be a non-starter and the plan’s text remains very vague as to the extent the Israel Defense Forces will move out of Gaza, if at all. Questions of governance, the agreement of a process towards a Palestinian state and the cost of reconstruction have yet to be resolved.

But the most important hurdle in the way of this ceasefire deal holding firm is the profound lack of trust between the parties.

Set against these obstacles, the ceasefire and return of the hostages and release of Palestinian prisoners, momentous though these two things have been, represent the low-hanging fruit of any end to the conflict. They should be seen as the first steps on a difficult and uncertain diplomatic path that has been characterised by decades of setbacks and political failure.

By contrast the Dayton and Northern Ireland peace processes that led to those agreements were painstakingly negotiated between all the parties in advance through detailed diplomacy and resulted in complex power-sharing arrangements. They were guaranteed by intricate governing structures that addressed the long-standing sectarian divisions through detailed constitutional changes and new institutions.

Aspiration is not agreement

No such details are part of “The Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity”. This, it turns out, is a 462-word document signed in Egypt by a hastily arranged group of international leaders that notably did not include representatives from Hamas or Israel.

It states: “We, the undersigned, welcome the truly historic commitment and implementation by all parties to the Trump Peace Agreement, ending more than two years of profound suffering and loss – opening a new chapter for the region defined by hope, security, and a shared vision for peace and prosperity.”

While laudable, aspiration is no substitute for detailed agreement and at this point Trump’s claims appear to be a case of premature congratulation.

Given how tentative the peace agreement is and the fact that October’s ceasefire looks remarkably similar to that which was agreed and then breached in January 2025, why is this being treated with such fanfare? Is it really, to quote Trump, “the historic dawn of a new Middle East”?

Beyond the obvious fact that Trump loves the adulation that has come with this peace process, there are also other political calculations in play. 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.

The more it is hyped as part of this theatre the more violators might reap the wrath of a president who felt his achievement and chances of a Nobel peace prize had been undermined.

What’s in it for other leaders?

The presence of so many world leaders at Trump’s peace summit requires a different explanation. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, UK prime minister, Keir Starmer and Canada’s Mark Carney might be forgiven for wondering why their presence was required as extras in this performative political theatre.

Behind their smiles and applause, they must have been acutely aware that such optics are damaging to the way they are viewed by their domestic public and press – and that their presence there will be criticised as evidence of supplication to Trump’s adulation. The presence in Sharm el Sheikh of Hungary’s Victor Orban added to the impression that Trump had gathered what he considers his fan club to Egypt.

But why they were willing to attend is equally revealing. As well as being seen to be supportive of the peace process and being keen to add to its momentum to raise the cost of its failure, Carney, Macron and Starmer are also playing a longer game. They perhaps hope to nudge Trump in the direction of further acts of international leadership.

Most notably, they are keen for Trump to embrace his self-identification as a “peacemaker” in order to pressure the Russian president Vladimir Putin to end his aggressive war against Ukraine.

Like most second-term US presidents Trump is concerned for his legacy. If flattering his 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.

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

– ref. Egypt peace summit showed that Donald Trump’s Gaza deal is more showbiz extravaganza than the ‘dawn of a new Middle East’ – https://theconversation.com/egypt-peace-summit-showed-that-donald-trumps-gaza-deal-is-more-showbiz-extravaganza-than-the-dawn-of-a-new-middle-east-267472

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aimee Grant, Associate Professor in Public Health and Wellcome Trust Career Development Fellow, Swansea University

Around a third of autistic people – children and adults alike – are unable to share what they want using speech.

You may have heard the term “non-verbal” to describe them, but that’s nearly always inaccurate. Many people without reliable speech still make noises which those close to them can interpret. Others use a small number of words or phrases.

You may also have heard of the term “selective mutism”. It means being unable to speak in some situations, and isn’t limited to autistic people. The NHS says that it is linked to anxiety in children.

But the word “selective” can be misleading. It doesn’t mean someone is choosing not to speak. For many autistic people, speaking can be impossible, extremely difficult, or even exhausting. So called “selective mutism” also isn’t limited to childhood.

For this reason, experts and those impacted increasingly use the term “semi-speaking”. It covers a wide range of people, from those who can say a few words now and then, to those who can speak fluently most of the time but not always.

Speech ability can also change depending on the environment. For example, being in a loud and bright space like a hospital or being in pain, may make it harder to speak. Many autistic people find it harder – and more unpleasant – to speak on the telephone.

Being able to communicate is crucial, not least because it provides a way of sharing needs. Not having your needs met is associated with distress. In autistic people this can lead to meltdowns, and it can lead to “burnout” in the long-term, which is associated with a loss of skills.

Alternatives to speech

When speech is impossible or too tiring, a variety of augmentative and alternative communication tools can help. Sign languages, including simplified languages like Makaton, can be used. Although because they rely on a communication partner who understands the language, they can be ineffective.

Paper-based methods, such as “picture exchange”, use cards to represent concepts or objects, such as “food” or a specific object, such as “banana”. But these can be frustrating. Imagine having to sort through a pile of cards to find the right word before speaking, and knowing that someone else chose those words for you.

The advent of tablets and smartphones has revolutionised augmentative and alternative communication applications. These apps allow the user to press a button representing words, or type messages that the device reads aloud. Both Android and Apple offer simple versions built into their systems.

But some autistic people do not find any of these strategies accessible. They may need a communication partner to work with them using a letter board to spell out words. While some critics claim that partners may falsely attribute words to the autistic person, eye-tracking research suggests this is not true.

Research shows that alternative communication methods benefit autistic adolescents and adults. But the majority of autistic people who struggle to speak still lack access to effective communication tools. This is probably in part due to a lack of speech and language therapists who could support parents and carers to better facilitate communication.

A common misconception is that non-speaking autistic people don’t understand or have nothing to communicate. But a significant body of research shows these autistic people are literate and have thoughts. Studies with mothers of non-speaking children demonstrate that deep connections can exist without spoken words.

It’s essential that autistic people, regardless of age, have a way to communicate. Spoken words should not be valued above other methods, and alternative communication should never be taken away by parents, teachers, or caregivers. For many autistic people, using alternatives to speech is not a choice – it’s a lifeline.

Aimee Grant receives funding from The Wellcome Trust, MRC and ESRC.

– ref. Why some autistic people don’t speak – https://theconversation.com/why-some-autistic-people-dont-speak-263244

Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Flint, Professor of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield

Between 2007 and 2010 Southwark council licensed 76 films to be shot on the high-rise Heygate estate in London’s Walworth area, providing a gritty backdrop for dramas of poverty and crime. This “theatre of stigma”, a term coined by historian of modern Britain Holly Smith, had come to dominate the narrative of high-rise social housing.

But it didn’t chime with the reality of those who live in these places. A decade earlier in Liverpool, mostly elderly residents from the city’s high-rise tower blocks attempted to “challenge perceptions of high-rise living” through the creation of Tenantspin television productions.

The slippery relationship between the representation and reality of high rises and their residents is one that Smith identifies from the earliest case study in her book Up in the Air:
A History of High-Rise Britain.

The history of the social housing high-rise has seen them exist in many forms, with varying designs and organisational structures. She also offers a nuanced account of the many contradictions in the high-rise, which “has signified modernity and decay, community and exclusivity, privilege and disadvantage, luxury and privation”.

Even during the boom periods of construction of social housing between 1945 and 1976, flats made up only a fifth of the dwellings built and the majority were in buildings of four storeys or less. Given how few high-rises exist, it is remarkable how these buildings became such a powerful symbol of social progress and of the problems and evolution of the welfare state.

There have always been those who romanticised high-rise living. For instance, the French architect Le Corbusier called it a “flirtation with the stars”. However, such sentiments were always offset by the pragmatic necessities of local authorities.

High-rise housing was seen as a crucible for forging a new welfare state offering radical new ways of living. The book illustrates how demolished tower blocks came to be seen by some commentators as the tombstones or ruins of this dream.

Smith makes the important point that it is not the high-rise’s design that is inherently broken, but the projections that we put on it. She contrasts, for example, the popular cultural denigration of high-rise council housing with New Labour’s portrayal of new, lavish, expensive and overwhelmingly private sector high-rise housing. These buildings became emblematic of thriving cities in a prosperous Britain.

A key contribution of the book is to get “within the walls” of high-rise Britain and document the lives of its residents. Smith documents their feelings about these complex buildings, which range from affection to ambivalence, to aversion.

One tenant reminds us how these towers were much-loved homes full of memories and friends, where individuals and families were powerfully invested, despite their frustrations and limitations: “During 35 years you become attached to the four walls even if they’re not very good walls.”

As Smith argues, the major failures in high-rise construction and management were also a devaluing of the lives and voices of their residents.

Smith avoids romanticising high-rise council housing, and tackles issues such as racism and a “welfare nationalism”, which is the prioritising of housing allocations for white British nationals.

However, one of her main goals is to debunk the myth, perpetuated by Margaret Thatcher and others, that high-rise housing resulted in passive tenants lacking initiative. Instead, she documents how local and national action by tenants was consistently creative, resourceful and visionary, leading to forms of democratisation, participation and cooperation.

Tragedy in towers

The failure to understand this is tragically illustrated in the two disasters that powerfully bookmark a key period in this history. The first is the partial collapse of the Ronan Point tower block in east London in 1968 only two months after it opened, which killed four people. The second is the Grenfell Tower fire in central London in 2017 in which at least 72 people lost their lives.

These disasters were the product of state neglect, corporate wrongdoing and inadequate regulation. There are depressing parallels between them and how the state responded each time.

In 1968, the investigation into what went wrong at Ronan Point found that a gas explosion had been able to blow out three load-bearing precast concrete wall panels. This triggered the catastrophic collapse of a corner of the tower.

The minister of housing, Anthony Greenwood, directed that the inquiry’s “terms of reference should be carefully considered to ensure that they implied no blame on the part of the local authority”. And, despite the incident exposing the vulnerability in the design, the government continued to approve the precast panels so as to cause no alarm to residents living in similar buildings.

The Ministry of Housing and Local Government told tenants to “leave the worrying to us”. Smith describes years of tenants raising concerns about potential future disasters. Tenant banners stating that “we live in fear” were a chilling foretelling of what was to come at Grenfell and after.

That is the key message from this book: that there are lessons from the history of high-rise housing in Britain about safety, investment, dispossession and the perspectives of tenants, that still have not been fully learned.

Delivering good quality, suitable and affordable accommodation for all has always been daunting. It remains to be seen whether we can collectively rise to the challenge.

Up in the Air:A History of High Rise Britain will be published by Verso Books on October 28 2025

---

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.

---

John Flint is not currently receiving funding from an organisation. He has previously received research funding from the UKRI, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Nuffield Foundation, a number of UK Government Departments, the Scottish Executive/ Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and local authorities He is a Trustee of the Housing Studies Charitable Trust.

– ref. How the high-rise tower block came to symbolise the contradictions of modern Britain – https://theconversation.com/how-the-high-rise-tower-block-came-to-symbolise-the-contradictions-of-modern-britain-267047

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joseph Mellors, Research Associate in Management and Marketing, University of Westminster

If you ask an AI service like ChatGPT or Google Gemini to recommend a destination for your next summer holiday, it will happily provide you with a list of attractive destinations. But many of them will be very familiar.

Paris, Venice, Santorini and Barcelona are all likely to feature, because the AI algorithm is nudging you towards the same old places. The illusion of personalised advice is what makes people less likely to question it – and why AI risks intensifying overtourism.

And the use of AI for holiday inspiration is growing fast. A recent survey found it has doubled in the past year, with uptake strongest among younger travellers. Nearly one in five Britons aged 25–34 now turn to AI tools to plan their trips.

In my own research, I analysed ChatGPT’s travel recommendations and found that it gravitates towards the most visited destinations by default. Lesser-known or more sustainable locations only tend to appear when travellers explicitly ask for them.

This could easily exacerbate the overtourism which is already testing the limits of many residents in highly visited places. In Mallorca, locals are demanding limits on flights and holiday rentals, while Venice introduced a day-tripper fee in an attempt to manage visitor pressure.

AI will quickly add to that pressure if millions of holiday makers make plans using the same online filters and tips. These algorithms are trained on what’s most visible online – reviews, blogs and social media hashtags – so quickly focus on what’s already popular.

And if travellers simply accept the defaults, the result will be more of the same, and more strain on places already under pressure.

But consumers aren’t entirely powerless. With a bit more intent, AI research can yield different and fascinating destinations.

My research suggests that discerning travellers need to start by asking better and more searching questions. Generic prompts such as “the best beaches in Europe” or “beautiful city” lead straight to the same results.

Instead, try something like: “Which towns are reachable by train but overlooked in most guides?” Or maybe: “Where can I go in July that’s not a major tourist hotspot?”

Push the system, ask follow-up questions and scroll past the first few results. That’s where the surprises often lie.

You could also change your timings. AI tends to focus on peak season because that’s when the most online reviews are posted and the most travel content is published.

Asking about off-peak months is a simple way to beat this built-in bias, so perhaps specify the Italian lakes in October or the Greek islands in May.

Or ask AI to dig a little deeper for its source material. AI draws heavily on English-language content, which favours international hot spots, but is also capable of finding independent travel blogs or local tourism cooperatives.

Type in something like “Spanish-language blogs about Asturias” or “community-run agritourism in Slovenia” and you could unearth something rewarding and off the beaten track. This is the kind of thing that can really unearth the vast potential benefits of AI and its capabilities.

The road less travelled

It could also easily help you to compare the costs and timings of various travel options, and assess the carbon footprint of your journey. It just requires a little bit of digging to get past the surface layer.

After all, these systems are designed to serve up the most obvious and well-documented suggestions, not what’s diverse or sustainable. (Although the same technology could just as easily be coded slightly differently to show rail travel before air for example, or to prioritise locally run independent businesses.)

So while the convenience of AI is seductive, it can also be predictable. If your holiday plans could be copy-pasted from Instagram, any sense of adventure can easily get left behind.

Consider using AI as a starting point, not the final word. Guidebooks, local media and conversations with residents restore the unpredictability that makes travel memorable.

By asking sharper questions, shifting their timing, checking footprints and seeking local voices, travellers can use AI as a tool for discovery rather than congestion. Every prompt is a signal to the system about what matters.

The next time you ask ChatGPT where to go, make it work a bit harder. Test it, argue with it and use its extraordinary capabilities to find somewhere new – or settle for the same crowded itinerary as everyone else.

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

– ref. How to use AI to guide your holiday plans – by a tourism expert – https://theconversation.com/how-to-use-ai-to-guide-your-holiday-plans-by-a-tourism-expert-267277