Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Pablo Uchoa, PhD Candidate in International Politics, Institute of the Americas, UCL

Shortly after US special forces captured and extracted Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on November 3, Donald Trump said that the US would now “run” Venezuela.

Whatever Washington’s plans for the future of Venezuelan governance, this show of US force in Latin America looks like the first manifestation of a more assertive American foreign policy outlined in the national security strategy published in November 2025. This plainly asserted the Trump administration’s intention to “reassert and enforce the Monroe doctrine to restore American pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere”.

Rather than force regime change at this point, Trump has indicated that he is willing to work with Maduro’s vice-president, Delcy Rodriguez, who has been sworn in as president. Rodríguez has adopted a conciliatory tone, inviting the US government to “work together on a cooperative agenda”. For the US president, “cooperation” will involve giving US oil companies unfettered access to Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world.

Announcing the raid at a press conference held hours after American forces snatched Maduro, Trump appeared to issue threats of similar interventions in Colombia, which he said was run by a “sick man who likes to make cocaine and sell it to the US”. His secretary of state, Marco Rubio – the child of Cuban exiles – also hinted at US intentions towards Cuba, saying: “If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned at least a little bit.”

The US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, was perhaps most revealing of the three, talking about the administration’s goal of “reestablishing American deterrence and dominance in the Western Hemisphere”. In a clear warning to US foes, Hegseth said that no other country could have pulled this operation off, adding: “Our adversaries remain on notice. America can project our will anywhere, anytime.”

This is worrying in terms of geopolitics for two reasons.

First, the administration has shown a remarkable lack of engagement with international law. It has chosen instead to frame the raid as a police action to apprehend Maduro as a “narco-terrorist” responsible flooding the US with drugs.

This thin veil of legality has proved successful in the past. In 1989, the administration of George H.W. Bush ordered the invasion of Panama to capture the strongman dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega was tried in Miami and jailed for 20 years on charges of being a sponsor of illicit drug trafficking.

Despite the UN passing a resolution condemning the invasion as a “flagrant violation of international law” (vetoed by the US, UK and France) the invasion enabled the US to take control of the canal. It held the canal for a decade before handing over operations to the Panama Canal Authority on December 31 1999.

The success of Bush’s invasion could explain why the Trump administration is taking a similar approach with Venezuela. Washington’s official line been to focus on Maduro’s alleged criminality rather than any US ambition to affect regime change in Venezuela.

---

Read more:
How US intervention in Venezuela mirrors its actions in Panama in 1989

---

Hegseth also insisted that the raid was about “safety, security, freedom and prosperity for the American people”. This assertion succinctly captures how the parameters of US national security have evolved to be much broader than defence. They now appear effectively inseparable from advancing US economic interests globally.

It’s an updated version of the Monroe doctrine, which the national security strategy described as the “Trump corollary”, but which the president himself has referred to as the “Donroe doctrine”. The term, which appears to have been coined by the New York Post (but which Trump nonetheless appears to have taken a liking to – as with most things that bear his name) is a vision of geopolitics which projects US power across the Americas.

And it looks set to be used to grab whatever resources the US perceives as beneficial to its interests, from Greenland’s minerals and strategic position to the Panama canal and Venezuelan oil.

A new era of interventionism?

Naturally, it is in Latin America where these threats become more palpable. The 1823 Monroe doctrine – developed under the then president, James Monroe – designated the western hemisphere as an area of US influence in which the European powers of the time were explicitly warned not to interfere. Seven decades later, the 1904 “Roosevelt corollary” added the principle that the US could interfere in any Latin American countries plagued by “wrongdoing or impotence” and “requiring intervention by some civilized nation”.

This principle was invoked to justify direct occupation of Latin American countries contrary to US interests in the early 20th century. In this century, China’s growing links in Latin America have prompted a resurgence of references to the Monroe doctrine – particularly by Republican Congress members.

In 2026, these developments highlight the Trump administration’s willingness to enhance the capabilities of this outlook. It is not clear how the Donroe doctrine differs from its predecessors. But like them, it seems to subordinate international law to national interest.

And while it is aimed at a global audience, it also appears to entitle powerful countries with the right of having spheres of influence. Commentators have referred to this as an era of “rogue superpowers” and the “Putinisation” of US foreign policy.

The absence of conspicuous military support for Maduro from either Russia or China reinforces those arguments. China reportedly buys 76% of Venezuelan oil, while Moscow has in recent years had strong military ties with Caracas. The two countries have also cooperated closely to help each other avoid US oil sanctions.

The new US foreign policy stance as exemplified by the snatching of Maduro means the world is more dangerous – and Latin America considerably more vulnerable. But for now it’s Venezuela, which appears to be the laboratory where Trump has decided to flex America’s geopolitical muscles.

And it looks as if Maduro is the unlucky guinea pig, whose fate is designed to indicate what the world’s most powerful military can and will do to advance its economic and national security interests around the world.

Pablo Uchoa was funded by UKRI, through LAHP, to complete his PhD in Political Science at the UCL Institute of the Americas.

– ref. The ‘Donroe doctrine’: Maduro is the guinea pig for Donald Trump’s new world order – https://theconversation.com/the-donroe-doctrine-maduro-is-the-guinea-pig-for-donald-trumps-new-world-order-272687

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Illingworth, Professor of Creative Pedagogies, Edinburgh Napier University

The discourse around climate change can lead to anxiety, detachment or resignation because it often stretches language in ways that make the world feel distant.

Global averages and abstract temperature thresholds make it harder for people to relate to climate change in their own specific location. And while the language of sustainable development appeals to rationality, it fails to engage people creatively and collectively.

But we have discovered that writing about local places that people are already connected to changes this dynamic and gives people a way to examine their own assumptions within a recognisable framework.

---

Read more:
How stories of personal experience cut through climate fatigue in ways that global negotiations can’t

---

Across our research in the UK and Sweden, grounding dialogue in the environments people know consistently improved understanding of climate issues and shifted the tone of discussion.

When participants begin with places they care about, they move away from remote fears and towards more constructive reflection. They draw on memory, observation and the granular details of daily life. Climate thinking becomes easier when it is tied to real places because it helps people connect abstract ideas to what they see and experience. This pattern appears across community projects, university teaching and collaborative studies.

The city of Lund in southern Sweden provides a distinctive perspective on this issue because it is shaped by mobility. Many students arrive, stay briefly, then move on. At the same time, the area’s gardens, parks, bike paths and nature reserves offer spaces for lingering and reflection.

Similarly, the city of Edinburgh in Scotland holds a transient student population alongside a deep sense of local community. This again creates a tension between movement and belonging.

Our work and other research shows that short exercises rooted in wetlands, coasts, gardens, museums or neighbourhoods can help people situate themselves in unfamiliar settings. Participants in our research are invited to write brief descriptions of what they notice, what appears to be changing and how this affects their own thinking. This creates space to test ideas without the defensiveness or polarisation that often accompanies climate debate.

A poem about a tidal line or a short essay about a street after heavy rain asks the writer to pay close attention. That attention becomes inquiry. It sharpens their observation, exposes assumptions and prompts questions about meaning and significance. This is analytical rather than sentimental.

---

The climate crisis has a communications problem. How do we tell stories that move people – not just to fear the future, but to imagine and build a better one? This article is part of Climate Storytelling, a series exploring how arts and science can join forces to spark understanding, hope and action.

---

Facts alone aren’t enough

Our shared work suggests that this approach localises the climate crisis without turning it into individual anecdote. Creative writing does not replace scientific explanation. It creates a structure through which readers relate evidence to the world they live in.

When someone writes about a familiar hill or a particular stretch of coastline, they are not claiming universal insight. They are sharing a real-life example. They are showing how climate data connects to a concrete place, which makes the discussion more accessible and helps others respond with observations from their own contexts.

This matters because climate communication sometimes assumes that information alone will drive change. Evidence shows that it rarely does. People need ways to integrate new knowledge with their own experience. Place-based writing provides that structure. It anchors reflection, keeps ideas from drifting into abstraction, and introduces creative constraints that demand clarity. Choosing which details carry meaning or which elements to omit reveals how people prioritise environmental concerns and interpret change.

---

Read more:
You don’t have to be a net zero hero – how focus on personal climate action can distract from systemic problems

---

Our teaching with undergraduates demonstrates this clearly. Students write short texts about specific places and discuss them in small groups. The task does not assess style. It assesses attention. People explain why they chose their place and what climate-related issues they observed or inferred. Listening to others exposes how local climate knowledge is produced, circulated and sometimes misread.

It highlights the tension between perception and evidence and requires each writer to discern which ecological questions feel most urgent in their own backyard.

---

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 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

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. How writing about places people know makes the climate crisis less abstract – https://theconversation.com/how-writing-about-places-people-know-makes-the-climate-crisis-less-abstract-270206

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ed Hutchinson, Professor, MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, University of Glasgow

The UK has added chickenpox to the routine childhood vaccination schedule for the first time, using a combined MMRV jab that also protects against measles, mumps and rubella. Here’s what parents need to know.

What is the new chickenpox vaccine?

The first thing to say is that the MMRV vaccine is not actually new. It’s been safely used in other countries (including the US, Australia and Germany) for decades, and has been available privately in the UK for some years. This year, MMRV is being introduced into the UK childhood vaccination schedule and will be available free of charge through the NHS.

The MMRV vaccine protects against four different viruses. For decades in the UK, the MMR vaccines have been used to safely protect children against a trio of particularly horrible infections: measles, mumps and rubella. The MMRV vaccine has one extra component, which protects children against the varicella zoster virus (VZV).

VZV might sound unfamiliar, but it causes some very familiar diseases. If you have ever had chickenpox, that was the point at which you caught VZV. Chickenpox is a short illness, but VZV is incurable – the virus will remain hiding in your nervous system for the rest of your life. In about one-third of people, it will eventually reactivate, causing a large, painful patch of infected skin known as shingles.

Recent research has shown that VZV reactivations also increase the risk of dementia in older adults.

Is the vaccine safe?

The MMRV vaccine has been used safely for decades. Like all vaccines, it was only approved for use because any risks from getting the vaccine are much less than the risks from having an infection.

How will the vaccine be given?

The MMRV vaccine is given as an injection in the upper arm or thigh. Typically, two doses are required for full protection. The NHS provides details of the vaccination.

When will children receive it?

In the future, children will be offered the vaccine alongside other childhood vaccines at 12 and 18 months. If your child was born before January 1, 2026 different timings may apply.

What if my child has already had chickenpox?

Children over six years are already likely to have caught chickenpox. You can’t normally catch VZV twice, so they will not normally be offered the new vaccine. If your child is over six but hasn’t had chickenpox, you may wish to consider getting the vaccine privately.

Why is the NHS introducing a chickenpox vaccine now?

The UK waited longer than many countries to introduce chickenpox vaccination, partly because of debates about the cost, and partly because it was unclear how long-lasting the protection would be.

Data from the US, where the vaccine has been used since the mid-1990s, now shows that the vaccine does provide robust, long-lasting protection.

There were also arguments about shingles. If you are infected with VZV, your immunity against the virus is boosted each time you encounter someone with chickenpox, and this can help unvaccinated people prevent VZV reactivations. The fact that there is now a shingles vaccine means that this is less of a problem than it used to be.

Is chickenpox really a serious illness?

Most cases of chickenpox are uncomfortable but resolve without severe illness, though some scarring is common. In rare cases, though, chickenpox can progress to cause very severe disease involving the lungs or brain, which can cause lifelong effects or even be fatal.

Even if chickenpox itself proves to be merely unpleasant – which in itself is worth protecting against – the fact that VZV is incurable and can cause serious diseases such as shingles and dementia in later life makes the chickenpox vaccine worth taking.

If you already had chickenpox – and if you are an adult who didn’t have the chickenpox vaccine, you probably did – there are other vaccines that can prevent your VZV reactivating, an event that would cause shingles and could increase your risk of dementia.

These shingles vaccines are freely available through the NHS if you are over 65, or if you have a weakened immune system.

Will the vaccine stop chickenpox completely?

Chickenpox is highly contagious and, at the moment, global elimination seems a long way off. However, with widespread use of the MMRV vaccine, the UK could join the group of countries where chickenpox – and the diseases that follow it – change from being nearly universal to rare events.

Ed Hutchinson receives grant funding from UKRI and the Wellcome Trust. He is the Chair of the Microbiology Society’s Virus Division, a Board Member of the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza, an unpaid scientific advisor to Pinpoint Medical, and has sat on an advisory board for Seqirus.

– ref. MMRV: what families need to know about the UK’s new chickenpox vaccine – https://theconversation.com/mmrv-what-families-need-to-know-about-the-uks-new-chickenpox-vaccine-272691

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Flinders, Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics, University of Sheffield

The British media’s obsession with the end of Keir Starmer’s premiership continues, with New Year’s coverage focusing on whether the prime minister will survive 2026.

Starmer began the year by telling BBC broadcaster Laura Kuenssberg that he can – and even that he will lead the Labour party into the next general election. But unless the most unradical of politicians does something very radical very quickly, the elections in May 2026 are likely to produce a leadership challenge.

However, leadership is not the core problem that the Labour party – or indeed, any party – really needs to focus on. The problem is that British politics is trapped in a “doom loop” that is, to some extent, of its own making.

It is lost in a self-reinforcing negative feedback cycle in which an initial problem triggers responses that worsen the original problem, locking the system into a spiral of decline.

Poor economic performance since the 2008 global financial crisis and a marked slowdown in productivity growth has led to poor UK performance in real wage growth and living standards. Low growth, high taxes and rising debt interest leads to declining confidence on the bond markets which leads to higher borrowing costs which, in turn, stifle growth and make deficits harder to tackle.

Although Rishi Sunak fought the 2024 election on the basis that it was possible to “reverse the creeping acceptance of a narrative of decline”, the public was not convinced.

In opposition, Starmer rejected the need for grand narratives or ideological ties. And he did not “win” the election thanks to a positive vision for Britain but largely due to the weight of disillusionment with the chaos of successive Conservative governments.

If anything, the doom loop has simply continued under Starmer, this time as what would become known as “miserabilism”. His governing style has been based around dampening expectations, emphasising national crises and blaming previous governments.

A perceived lack of ambition and a style and persona that emphasised grim necessity over hope and belief has exacerbated the problem. The paradox of such a pessimistic approach is that it has only added to a narrative of “broken Britain” that has increased populist pressures.

The problem is not (just) Starmer. The deeper problem is that none of the main contenders to replace him seem capable of offering a bold story of renewal and achievement that can stimulate collective confidence and national self-belief. Nor, if we are honest, are the leaders of the main opposition parties.

Towards the end of 2025 the doom loop was almost deafening. In October, BBC Radio 4 asked its listeners, “What kind of a state are we actually in?” before summarising their responses in the following terms:

If you pull out the kaleidoscope there are record delays for court cases, prisoners are being released, doctors are striking, water companies are pumping raw sewage wherever they can (preferably into lakes, rivers and the sea, that’s where they like to put it). We are one of the world’s richest seven economies and yet it does not feel like that by listening to the news … Bins on the streets, rats in the kitchen, gangs running prisons, knifes in the schools, university system broken, asylum system broken, benefits system broken, social housing system broken, politics broken, broken railways, poisoned rivers, failing high streets … you’d head for the hills if they weren’t strewn with rubbish.

An absence of ideas in response to these problems has created the political vacuum that Nigel Farage’s Reform party has exploited with such zeal. For Farage the story is simple – the UK is stuck in a spiral of decline that can only be broken by a combination of economic nationalism, cultural conservatism and populist politics.

Whether you believe in Farage’s diagnosis of the problem or prescriptions for reform, what he offers is a vaunted solution to the doom loop problem that is clear and confident.

The power of narrative

As academics Alex Prior and Clara Eroukhmanoff have argued, political leaders not only need a clear narrative but they also have to be compelling characters within that narrative. Margaret Thatcher offered both the narrative and persona. She acknowledged the existence of challenges while telling a story about how she intended to fix them.

Tony Blair did the same. Meanwhile, the loss of a Conservative majority in 2017 was attributed to Theresa May “performing neither the narrative nor the persona”.

Starmer is not, and never has been, a storyteller. The limits of his performative competence were demonstrated in his 2026 New Year “things will get better” message to the British public. His argument that “decline” really will be “reversed” was unconvincing, his body language and facial expressions betrayed a lack of inner belief and the whole video has a tragi-comic dimension that is difficult to miss.

It’s easy to dismiss political storytelling as spin or selective framing – to call it propaganda or a manipulative tool for circumnavigating rational thought. But humans are storytelling animals. Understanding and ideas evolve through narratives.

Stories are sense-making and sense-giving modes of communication. They frame issues and they have an emotional appeal that resonates with their audiences. The “story paradox” is that they can bind people together and they can tear communities apart.

The dominant narrative in British politics is destructive, cynical and polarising. It focuses on failure and perpetuates the doom loop.

The question for 2026 is less about Starmer’s future and more about whether the political class can rebut this dominant and dangerous narrative of “broken Britain” with a positive and inclusive story about nurturing social change, building flourishing communities, generating inclusive growth and playing a role in the emergent world order.

But most of all this story must connect with the day-to-day concerns and lived experiences of voters and be able to radically reshape the tone of public debate. Britain urgently needs to tell a different story.

Matthew Flinders 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 can Labour escape the doom loop in 2026? – https://theconversation.com/how-can-labour-escape-the-doom-loop-in-2026-272758

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bill Sherman, Director of the Warburg Institute, School of Advanced Study, University of London

This year the V&A opens its new outpost in east London. In 2025 it unveiled the so-called Storehouse, and its new V&A East Museum opens in April 2026. V&A East is part of a new cultural campus, on the site of the 2012 Summer Olympics, dedicated to collections, education and policy.

Designed by Diller Scofidio + Renfro (DS+R), the architecture firm best known for the giant Shed at the end of Manhattan’s High Line, the Storehouse serves as the new home for hundreds of thousands of objects that are not on display in the Museum’s main galleries in South Kensington.

It will be joined by the V&A East Museum, which will aim to spotlight making and the power of creativity to drive social change. It will open with the exhibition The Music Is Black: A British Story, which will reveal how Black British music has shaped British culture.

When the V&A East Storehouse opened it was met with both critical and popular acclaim, offering a beleaguered museum sector a glimpse of what London’s deputy mayor for culture called “the museum of the future”. However, if the V&A has created a new kind of institution, it’s fair to say, it has done so by going “back to the future”.

Indeed, that was the title of one of the early presentations I myself helped to create in 2016, when I was the V&A’s director of research and collections, to secure the approval of both the Museum’s Board of Trustees and London’s Mayor.

---

Read more:
How the new V&A Storehouse is reshaping public access to museum collections

---

We drew inspiration from our recent record. As it happens, the three-year period during which V&A East was conceived saw three of the most successful exhibitions in the Museum’s history – David Bowie Is (2013), Disobedient Objects (2014) and Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty (2015). Each of these exhibitions was a masterclass in museology (the practice of organising, arranging and managing museums) devoted to subjects once seen as difficult if not impossible to display.

We also met with people who had designed ambitious commercial and cultural infrastructures, including one of Germany’s largest hardware chains and one of Australia’s busiest public libraries. We visited other institutions devoted to giving new access to non-displayed collections such as Glasgow’s Museums Resource Centre and Rotterdam’s Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum, whose dramatic Depot opened in 2021 as “the world’s first publicly accessible art storage facility.”

These new projects pointed us, in turn, to a history that stretched back to the middle of the 19th century, when the V&A grew out of the Great Exhibition of 1851. This first World’s Fair attracted more than six million visitors and provided both collections and capital for the South Kensington Museum (the precursor to the V&A and the Science Museum). This institution was the first to offer food to visitors and evening hours. It was also supported by the first system of artificial lighting.

The decades that followed the fair saw pioneering developments in how museums were run. There were strides in technologies of reproduction such as photography and plaster casts. There was increasing circulation of collections to remote locations. Makers and artists were incorporated more into the galleries. There was also a core commitment to integrating research and teaching in the museum.

In those years, the Victoria and Albert Museum became part of a campus (known half-jokingly as Albertopolis) bringing together complementary institutions devoted to collections, education and policy. This was the explicit model not only for V&A East but for the redevelopment of the entire Queen Elizabeth Park in the wake of the 2012 Summer Olympics. In planning both the Storehouse and the new museum that will open next spring, we worked closely with partners (first UCL and the Smithsonian and later Sadler’s Wells, London College of Fashion, BBC Symphony Orchestra and others) who could create new synergies with old collections.

The V&A East Storehouse may well be the world’s largest cabinet of curiosities. It is certainly the most democratic: the Victoria and Albert Museum’s new facility in East London is free to visit and sits at the intersection of four of the UK’s most diverse and deprived neighbourhoods.

“It holds everything,” according to the V&A’s website, “from the pins used to secure a 17th century ruff to a two-storey section of a maisonette flat from the Robin Hood Gardens housing estate, demolished in 2017.” Other artefacts include The Kaufmann Office, the only complete interior by architect Frank Lloyd Wright outside of the US.

Visitors can not only see these “reserve collections” through a dizzying vista of open shelving but can order up to five items for a closer look. They can explore displays made by artists-in-residence and members of the community. They can look down through the glass-panelled floor into a state-of-the-art conservation lab. The project puts a national collection into the hands of the people and makes the experience no more daunting than a trip to the local Ikea, or, for that matter, the Westfield Shopping Centre, through which most people will pass on their short walk from Stratford Station.

When the project was conceived, Martin Roth, the V&A’s Director, asked us to turn the museum inside out, giving our visitors new insights into how collections are made, preserved and shown. Gus Casely-Hayford, the Director of V&A East, wants to bring a different demographic to the V&A, including local people who may never have been to a museum.

Its opening will complete East London’s new cultural campus. Only time will tell if the experiment of V&A East is as successful as Prince Albert’s visionary model in South Kensington.

---

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.

---

Bill Sherman receives funding from Research England.

– ref. V&A East: the spirit of the 19th-century cultural campus of ‘Albertopolis’ lives on – https://theconversation.com/vanda-east-the-spirit-of-the-19th-century-cultural-campus-of-albertopolis-lives-on-272103

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emily Servante, Postdoctoral Researcher, Cereal Symbiosis, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge

It’s an exciting time to be a microbiologist working in rice research. A global push towards the cultivation of water-saving rice is enabling farmers to harness the power of microbes that thrive in less water.

Some farmers already use rice production systems that reduce or eliminate the length of time rice is submerged in a flooded paddy field. At the sowing stage, planting of pre-germinated seeds (direct seeding) rather than traditional transplanting of small plants into flooded paddies reduces the need for waterlogged fields. Waterlogged rice paddies emit huge amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Similarly, an irrigation practice known as alternate wetting and drying uses pipes drilled into fields to encourage water management and intermittent flooding, reducing water usage and methane emissions.

Among microbes thriving in less water are arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. These are beneficial soil fungi that live inside plant roots and help to extend plants’ reach into the soil to collect nutrients, acting as “natural biofertilisers”.

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi are aerobic, meaning they require oxygen for survival. This makes them more likely to be well suited to the drier, more aerated soils (with air spaces to allow efficient exchange of nutrients, water and air) that are increasingly promoted in sustainable rice systems.

To test this theory, I stepped out of the Crop Science lab at the University of Cambridge and into the field at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines.

Using some ink stain and a microscope, I examined roots from IRRI 154, a direct-seeded water-saving rice variety developed by the institute.

The results were striking: in IRRI 154 grown in traditional flooded paddy conditions, there were no signs of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonising the rice roots. But in irrigated, non-flooded “dry” conditions, the fungi were present in up to 20% of the root. This was a clear indication that water-reducing farming practices like dry direct-seeding can promote arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonisation in rice.

Similarly, a recent study reported that arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi help rice grown under alternate wetting and drying in Senegal to have increased resilience to changes in water and nutrient levels.

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi don’t just help plants access nutrients. They can also provide resistance to pathogens and increased survival in harsh climate conditions such as drought. Encouraging them to colonise rice plants could therefore enhance the overall resilience of rice, an increasingly important trait in the face of climate change and water shortages.

By supporting and even boosting beneficial microbes like these, our team at the Crop Science Centre also hope to reduce the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers. Fertilisers are a major source of nitrous oxide (N₂O), a potent greenhouse gas. One alternative is for farmers to apply biofertilisers, products containing live beneficial microorganisms such as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to promote growth.

Determining and testing optimal formulations and application strategies is a big challenge for researchers like me. The effectiveness of biofertilisers depends on several critical quality-control factors. This includes avoiding contamination, preventing spoilage during storage, successful establishment in the soil and efficient colonisation of plant roots.

The soil is a complex environment. Solutions need to be tailored to local landscapes and specific situations. That’s where an ongoing partnership with Tilda, a UK rice brand, comes in. Tilda successfully implemented water-saving alternate wetting and drying with thousands of basmati farmers in India. Since this encourages the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, it has enabled my colleagues and I to put our science into practice.

I visited farmers in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh to ask about their thoughts on using local arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi-based biofertilisers to reduce the use of synthetic fertiliser. To my surprise, many had heard of “mycorrhizae” and were optimistic about its potential.

Our first mission was to check the presence of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in Pusa 1, a popular basmati variety grown in the area. Together with the rice farmers in Haryana, we turned the local rice market (mandi) into a lab, setting up ink staining and microscopes for people to see. I found the characteristic tree-like structure of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a root, and ran outside to tell the crowd of over 20 farmers and agronomists to take a look.

From lab to field

Having confirmed that the fungi were present in Pusa 1 basmati, and with advice from Tilda’s local agronomists, we decided to test two locally available “mycorrhizae” biofertilisers in 31 pilot farms.

We visited the farmers involved in this pilot in September 2025. In Uttar Pradesh, we visited the family farm of Bhoti Devi, a female farmer, and gathered under a tree for shade while discussing field observations with her and some other farmers in the area.

The farmers told me that the rice with added mycorrhizae biofertiliser appeared to have increased root growth and a higher number of tillers (farm machinery with rotating blades that churn up and aerate the soil), indicating a potential boost in yields. I shared images from my own tests in Cambridge which showed similar results. It was so exciting to share and compare our observations.

In Haryana, ten farmers similarly described improved root growth. This visible improvement gives us and farmers confidence that these biofertilisers could be improving crop performance while water-saving techniques are being used. Now, we’re gathering data from this season to confirm these initial observations.

Our next steps for the biofertiliser testing are two-fold: to investigate whether we can apply them to reduce the use of synthetic fertiliser, and to examine the composition and sustainability of the available commercial biofertiliser products. This will ensures they reduce the use of synthetic fertiliser and associated greenhouse gas emissions. With more than 4,000 farmers in Tilda’s network, tests can be scaled up to assess the effects of reduced synthetic fertiliser on rice yields.

Translating our lab-based research into a real-world, scalable application is a dream scenario. From breeding programmes at IRRI in the Philippines to farmer fields in India, water-saving rice systems like direct seeding and alternate wetting and drying are promoting the presence of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in rice roots.

Together with rice farmers in India, we can explore how to use more natural biofertilisers to reduce synthetic fertilisers and build more sustainable farming 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 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Emily Servante is collaborating on a project with Tilda, funded by the Ebro Foundation.

– ref. How I’m helping rice farmers in India harness the power of fungi in the soil – https://theconversation.com/how-im-helping-rice-farmers-in-india-harness-the-power-of-fungi-in-the-soil-269209

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Beverley O’Hara, Lecturer in Public Health Nutrition, Leeds Beckett University

New advertising restrictions on unhealthy food and drink have come into force in the UK, targeting products deemed to be high in fat, salt or sugar. From now on, TV, radio or online adverts that feature these foods will be banned before 9pm.

The advertising ban is part of a government plan to halve childhood obesity by 2030. It includes a range of strategies including marketing and advertising controls on unhealthy food, changes to retail environments such as removing high-calorie foods from checkouts, and industry targets to reformulate unhealthy products.

The government wants to incentivise brands to reformulate and promote healthier options, and there is some evidence that this approach can be successful. The sugar tax, for instance, has reduced total sales of sugar from soft drinks by 35% since it was introduced in 2018.

Restrictions on promotions of less healthy foods in supermarkets and online retailers have also led to a small reduction in the sales of these products.

The government is generally reluctant to disclose the extent to which lobbying by industry has a bearing on regulation, citing issues of confidentiality. However, implementation of the new legislation, which was originally due to come into force in October 2025, was delayed and ultimately amended to exempt “brand advertisements”.

In essence, companies cannot advertise a restricted product, but are allowed to advertise their brand. This means they can comply with the legislation by advertising their brand or range as long as they do not show a specific identifiable less healthy product. So a fast-food chain could show its logo or other elements of its brand identity but could not show its burgers or milkshakes.

Losing this “appetite appeal” in adverts may not be a big problem for brands. Some of the most iconic food adverts do not feature the specific food product.

Instead of explicit images of foods, creatives can use storytelling and emotion to do the persuading. It now seems that the creative sector is chomping at the bit to meet this challenge by finding inventive ways to get the brands noticed.

When it announced the brand exemption in May 2025, the government said it wanted to ensure that the food industry “has confidence to invest in advertising” while simultaneously wishing to “protect children from advertising of less healthy products”. In truth, both can’t be achieved simultaneously. The exemption is effectively a massive loophole and points to the government’s capitulation to industry pressure.

The fact that outdoor advertising is not included in the restrictions is also a missed opportunity. Since the regulations were announced in 2020, there has been a marked increase in spending on outdoor advertising like billboards and posters on bus shelters by food companies. Outdoor advertising of less healthy foods is pervasive and effective.

Bans on this form of advertising, as happened across the Transport for London network from 2019, for example, have been shown to reduce spending on calories from less healthy foods and are widely accepted by the public. But the food industry tempts cash-strapped local authorities into selling council-owned sites to advertise their products.

Restricting marketing of less healthy foods on television and online but not extending the measures to outdoor advertisements does not make sense. There is a need for a coordinated national strategy on outdoor advertising to make the ban apply across the board, which should include restrictions on non-council owned assets such as billboards and displays.

Taken together, the current set of policies on less healthy foods are a step in the right direction, but they need to go much further. Of course, providing more transparency on lobbying from the food industry would be a start.

Implementing policies using the stricter 2018 nutrient profiling model would also help because it has a different approach to scoring sugar, salt, fibre and calories. This means it is harder for products to be classed as healthy.

While policies that restrict marketing and promotion of less healthy foods can incentivise companies to reformulate their products, this approach has significant limitations from a public health perspective.

Other initiatives like the sugar reduction programme may benefit individual health, but risk creating new environmental problems. Some non-sugar sweeteners have been identified as environmental contaminants, meaning that products reformulated to be “healthier” for consumers may actually prove harmful to the planet.

This tension highlights the broader complexity of public health nutrition policy, where improvements in one domain can inadvertently create problems in another.

---

Read more:
Some artificial sweeteners are forever chemicals that could be harming aquatic life

---

The UK cannot reformulate its way out of a poor national diet. A big part of the problem of diet and health in the UK is the poor overall quality of what people are eating.

Policies on less healthy foods are just one part of the solution. It is much more complex and challenging to increase the proportion of healthier foods in people’s diets, which is why the government should invest in public health nutrition research.

If the UK is serious about preventing diet-related poor health, it needs to consider its food culture and values. It must be possible to find ways to increase the appeal, cost and convenience of healthier foods. This new advertising ban is a small part of the puzzle that is improving the national diet. But essentially, eating better needs to get a lot easier.

Beverley O’Hara 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. There’s a huge loophole in the new UK ban on daytime junk food ads – https://theconversation.com/theres-a-huge-loophole-in-the-new-uk-ban-on-daytime-junk-food-ads-272410

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joshua Hobbs, Lecturer and Consultant in Applied Ethics, University of Leeds

Many people want to try to address injustice, but don’t know where to start. Some forms of injustice can be addressed by donating money to charities or aid organisations. However, as the American political theorist Iris Marion Young argued, many of the most serious injustices in the world are structural and require political solutions.

Structural injustices are not the result of people deliberately acting wrongly, but instead come about when large numbers of people act in tiny, normal and morally acceptable ways. Without necessarily meaning to, they help perpetuate injustices such as sweatshop labour, as well as factors that lead to poverty and climate change. We might say that these injustices are baked into society.

Individual efforts – for example by buying less, donating to charity or buying ethical alternatives – can’t solve these problems entirely. The structures will remain unchanged without political action. Becoming an activist is a way of taking up what philosophers call our “political responsibility” for structural injustice.

But despite all the injustice in the world, and the pressure from social media to care loudly about every issue, devoting a significant amount of time to activism isn’t achievable for everyone.

Most people – especially those with caring responsibilities – have scarce free time to develop the requisite knowledge about the political issues or the relevant skills to take part. People also need to manage the practicalities of activism, such as attending a demonstration or participating in a letter-writing campaign. Some forms of activism also require skills, such as speaking in public or expressing political views online.

If this sounds intimidating, here are three small ways you can help tackle injustice.

1. Activism light

Getting involved in activism doesn’t have to be a full-time job. For those with other commitments, it’s still better to do something rather than nothing.
This might mean engaging in small ways around other commitments, for example, by attending occasional protests or posting political content on social media.

You might worry that this route is minimally effective, and engaging in what may appear to be tokenistic activity is certainly a concern here if that time could be better spent on more effective alternatives.

But lots of small actions can quickly add up when they take place as part of a collective effort. Engaging in smaller forms of activism can also provide learning opportunities. Small actions can help skill you up to participate more effectively in more complicated and demanding forms of activism in the future.

2. Work within existing social roles

A second way to address structural injustice without becoming activists comes from the ethicist Robin Zheng. Zheng argues that we can alter unjust structures by pushing the boundaries of our existing social roles.

We all occupy various social roles, such as parent, teacher or friend. As these roles are part of the social structures we live in, performing these roles with “a raised consciousness” can help challenge injustice from where we already are.

This doesn’t have to be by doing anything additional, but by doing what we already do – differently. For example, as teachers we might educate our students on the injustice of sweatshop labour, or as parents we might prioritise gender equality in raising our children.

3. Be a scaffolder

Finally, you might support the activism of others without engaging in activism yourself. This (often unrecognised) work is vital for the success of collective political action. Without it, activism would be more burdensome for activists, and much activism would simply not occur.

Take, for example, the role of many ordinary citizens within black communities during the 1960s struggle for civil rights in the US who supported activists without engaging in activism themselves. Rather than attending protests, many supported the actions of those who did, through supplying food, transport or places to stay.

Engaging in scaffolding could be as simple as looking after someone’s child so that they can attend a protest, or providing protesters with food or coffee.

Scaffolding can still take place even if you don’t come into contact with activists in your everyday life. Campaigns exist where people can sponsor activists by organising training, covering the costs of childcare and transportation, or even paying the bail of those detained while protesting.

Supporting activism at a distance without providing financial contributions is more difficult. Crafting supplies for protesters is one way this can be achieved – as in the case of the “pussyhats” created by knitting circles around the world for attendees at the Women’s March on Washington.

Challenging unjust structures can seem daunting, but it is something we all can do without becoming full-time activists.

Joshua Hobbs 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. Three ways to tackle injustice without being a full-time activist – https://theconversation.com/three-ways-to-tackle-injustice-without-being-a-full-time-activist-271248

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael La Corte, Research Associate, Curation and Communication, University of Tübingen

Imagine waking up to find strangers in your home – eating your food, killing your animals, then laughing as they blind you. Later, they tell the world you were the monster.

We are describing one of the better known episodes of Homer’s Odyssey, written around the late 8th or early 7th century BC. The intruders are protagonist Odysseus’s men, and the “monster” they attack is Polyphemus, a solitary giant shepherd later remembered only as a cyclops.

For centuries, we’ve followed the hero’s journey without asking what it costs. But what if the cyclops wasn’t the monster, but just one of many lives shattered along the way?

Director Christopher Nolan’s new adaptation of The Odyssey hits cinemas in July 2026. But will it celebrate Odysseus as the clever hero – or finally confront the wreckage he leaves in his wake?

Homer’s Odyssey, composed at the turn of the 8th to the 7th century BC, follows Odysseus, king of Ithaca, as he struggles to return home from the Trojan war, outwitting monsters, gods and fate. It’s a tale of resilience and cunning – and the template for countless stories since: the clever man triumphs over the monstrous other and sails home in glory.

We know the pattern by heart. But we rarely ask: who gets trampled along the way, and whose story is never told?

---

This article is part of Rethinking the Classics. The stories in this series offer insightful new ways to think about and interpret classic books and artworks. This is the canon – with a twist.

---

In the scene of Odysseus v Polyphemus, the cyclops is cast as a brute, a savage who traps the hero and his men in a cave. Odysseus responds with legendary cunning: wine, lies, a sharpened stake – and escape.

From the outside, it’s textbook heroism, yet Homer himself hints at the cost of that victory. He has Odysseus reveal his name only after the escape: “Tell them it was Odysseus, sacker of cities, who blinded you.” It’s a moment of pride, not necessity – the spark that seals his fate. In that instant, the clever survivor becomes the arrogant aggressor, and the story’s moral axis begins to tilt.

Yet if we shift perspective, the story changes. Polyphemus is a solitary shepherd, living in peace. Strangers break into his home, steal his food, kill his livestock, and leave him blinded and broken. His cave isn’t a prison but a home under siege. His violence, while brutal, emerges from desperation. You could easily argue that Polyphemus isn’t the villain. He’s the victim.

This reversal reveals a troubling pattern: our cultural instinct to root for the protagonist, no matter what they do – as long as the cause feels noble. From ancient epics to Hollywood blockbusters, we excuse deception, destruction, even murder, if it serves the “greater good”.

We cheer when the hero escapes – but rarely look back at what’s left behind. A burned city. A grieving family. A blinded shepherd. If it fits the story, we accept the collateral damage as necessary. That’s the seductive logic of heroism: clean endings, messy consequences.

In Homer’s writing, Polyphemus gets a single moment of anguish – a prayer to Poseidon, his father – and then vanishes from the story. His voice, his pain, his version of events do not fit the heroic arc.

And this pattern continues. Empires and conquerors have long branded enemies as “barbarians”, “savages” or “monsters” to justify violence. From Roman propaganda to colonial domination in the Americas and Africa – and, more recently, to claims of “denazification” in Ukraine – this tactic dehumanises the “other side” and erases their stories. Strip the enemy of humanity, and their suffering becomes legitimised.

If history is so often written by the victors, we must ask: what remains of heroism when we finally listen to the so-called monsters? As global conflicts polarise public discourse around heroes and villains, the stories we choose, and those we silence, matter more than ever.

What if we shift the spotlight? Polyphemus becomes more than a monster – he’s a mirror, showing how unchecked heroism can slip into cruelty. Cleverness isn’t virtue. And survival at others’ expense isn’t always justified.

Odysseus, the “man of many turns” is brilliant but ambiguous. His actions bring destruction alongside triumph. For every hero who returns, many suffer or are lost. True heroism lies not just in daring escapes, but in owning the cost left behind.

The cyclops’ tale warns us how easily we dehumanise those in the hero’s way. How we flatten complexity to fit a script. How we justify harm if the story feels right. Rethinking Polyphemus complicates Odysseus and challenges us as storytellers and audiences.

The real challenge for Nolan’s The Odyssey won’t be spectacle or scale, but perspective. Will it dare to look beyond the hero? Will it give voice to those left in his shadow? Clint Eastwood did just that with Flags of Our Fathers (2006) and Letters from Iwo Jima (2006), telling the story of the battle of Iwo Jima from opposing sides. By letting the “enemy” speak, he shattered the illusion of a single, righteous story.

If Nolan embraces that sort of complexity, The Odyssey won’t just retell a myth but will challenge us to rethink who we name as heroes and to listen more closely to those we once dismissed as monsters.

---

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.

---

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

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

– ref. Odysseus the destroyer? Christopher Nolan’s new Odyssey adaptation revives an ancient moral question – https://theconversation.com/odysseus-the-destroyer-christopher-nolans-new-odyssey-adaptation-revives-an-ancient-moral-question-270312

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Hargy, Visiting Research Fellow in International Studies, Queen’s University Belfast

Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a close ally of Donald Trump, spelled out in one short sentence why elements of the US president’s core voter base were dismayed at the weekend operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro: “This is what many in Maga thought they voted to end.”

The sentiment expressed by Greene, who recently broke with Trump over what she alleged was his unwillingness to order the justice department to fully release its files relating to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was shared by some other elected Republican officials.

This included Kentucky’s Thomas Massie, who also publicly stated his disapproval with Trump’s decision to order the attack. But so far these voices are in the minority. In the days and hours since the operation, a series of prominent Congressional Republicans have united behind the president.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for example, praised Trump’s decision to green light the US mission. He wrote on social media: “We will be more prosperous and safer for it. I am hoping and praying that the Venezuelan people will soon have a fresh start on democracy and freedom.”

American public opinion on the Venezuela attack will be measured in the coming days. But it is useful to reflect on polling leading up to the event. The Trump administration has authorised a number of military strikes on alleged drug boats near Venezuelan territory in recent months, while Trump himself has repeatedly threatened land strikes in the country.

A poll from December 2025 conducted by Quinnipiac University in the US found that 63% of registered American voters opposed military action against Venezuela – a significant figure against this type of intervention. More than half of the 25% of voters that supported military action were Republicans.

Some Republican political operatives are warning that a prolonged American presence in Venezuela will be detrimental to Trump and his party ahead of midterm elections in November. Dave Carney, a Republican strategist, stated on January 3 that “Nobody wants a quagmire. Nobody wants … body bags coming back to Dover of American soldiers who are being sniped at from … a rebellious minority in Venezuela.”

Philip Elliot, senior correspondent at Time magazine, has asserted that Trump’s aversion to foreign interventions was a huge appeal for many who supported him in the 2024 election. Elliot wrote on January 3 that, for these people, Trump’s “incursion into Venezuela, the capture of its first family, and its about-face of campaign promises stung something bitter”.

Trump’s overseas strategy

The military operation in Venezuela modifies Trump’s make America great again (Maga) foreign policy doctrine. In his second inaugural address in January 2025, Trump pledged that: “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, by the wars we never get into.”

But the recent events in Venezuela seem to indicate a shift in Trump’s overseas strategy. The attack sees the president follow similar forays by his Republican predecessors in the western hemisphere. These include Ronald Reagan’s decision to invade Grenada in 1983 and George H.W. Bush’s authorisation of a military operation to oust Panama’s president, Manuel Noriega, in 1989.

This reorientation was to some extent codified by the Trump administration’s new national security strategy, which was published in late 2025. Vanda Felbab-Brown of the Brookings Institution argues that this document pivots “the US toward the western hemisphere … essentially asserting a neo-imperialist presence in the region”. The document may explain the rationale behind the operation in Venezuela.

The military action in Venezuela represents a victory for the more hawkish members of the Trump administration. This is perhaps most true for secretary of state Marco Rubio, who has long advocated removing Maduro from power. A possible change in government in Venezuela could lead to other geopolitical events in the western hemisphere that Rubio has spent years pushing for.

In 2019, for instance, he intimated that a diminished Cuban regime would be a welcome “byproduct” of Maduro’s removal. Since the raid in Venezuela, Rubio has asserted that Cuba’s government may be on borrowed time. “If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned at least a little bit,” he said.

Being focused solely on the foreign policy sphere is also currently a political advantage for Rubio, especially if he is contemplating a run for the presidency in 2028. The crisis in Venezuela ensures he avoids becoming ensnared in other current domestic political controversies, including the high cost of living and continuing controversy over the release of the Epstein files.

The road ahead

In the coming weeks and months, the Trump administration will strive to navigate a path that reduces the risk of the US becoming entangled in a military conflict in South America. It will face continuing criticism from within its own party ranks and the Democratic opposition in Congress. The administration will also face media scrutiny on the legality of the action as well as the future scope of the US mission in Venezuela.

Laurel Rapp from Chatham House, a research institute based in the UK, has stated the Trump team will worry particularly about the potential for some of the leaders within the “Maga movement” who have broken with Trump to “exploit this rift as the midterms heat up”.

There could be some political currency for Maga standard bearers opposed to military operation in Venezuela to trade on. But, in my opinion, it is unlikely to have serious national domestic political ramifications in the immediate term. This is due to the fact the military action was executed successfully and without any American deaths.

So, standby for the more established issues to return to the fore soon – the economy, healthcare costs and the Epstein files.

Richard Hargy 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. What Trump’s Venezuela intervention means for US domestic politics – https://theconversation.com/what-trumps-venezuela-intervention-means-for-us-domestic-politics-272688