Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Edward Lavender, Postdoctoral Researcher, Aquatic Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology; Edinburgh Napier University

The development of miniaturised electronic tags that can be attached to animals has been one of the most spectacular developments for biology, environmental science and wildlife conservation in the 21st century.

In a new study published in the journal Science Advances, my colleagues and I unlocked new opportunities to track animals underwater, using advanced statistical techniques also adopted in military and aerospace contexts.

Animals are tracked all over the world: in deserts, grasslands, forests, rivers, lakes and oceans, from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Satellite-based tags, which transmit the locations of tagged animals, have been particularly important, providing an unprecedented “eye on life and planet”.

But reconstructing the movements of animals that live exclusively underwater without ever surfacing remains a great challenge.

Beneath the waves, satellite-based trackers don’t work because the transmissions can’t pass effectively through water. So scientists have to rely on indirect observations to study animal movements, like detections on hydrophones or animal-borne depth measurements.

In Scotland, we have spent over a decade studying the movements of the critically endangered flapper skate (Dipturus intermedius). Skates, and their close cousins the sharks, are an ancient and diverse group of animals. The flapper skate is the world’s largest skate.

Growing over two metres long and 100kg in weight, flapper skate can be found roaming in the darkness over the seabed in the north-east Atlantic. It’s thought they may live for over 40 years.

For generations, flapper skate was mislabelled as common skate. It was only in 2010 that the common skate was shown, genetically, to comprise two species: the flapper and the common blue skate. Both are thought to be critically endangered due to historical overfishing.

In 2016, the Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura marine protected area in Scotland was established with fisheries restrictions to conserve flapper skate. It’s an inspiring place. The mountains of Scotland’s west coast rise dramatically out of the sea, which is peppered with islands and inlets. But the landscape is just as rugged underwater, where flapper skate roam in the deep.

Listening for animals underwater

Since 2016, we’ve been tracking flapper skate in Scotland using a technology called passive acoustic telemetry. It’s used in aquatic environments all over the world to track fish and other animals underwater. Animals are tagged with acoustic transmitters and networks of listening stations (hydrophones) are deployed that can detect those signals when tagged animals swim within range.

For flapper skate, we also deploy pressure sensors that record their depths. The challenge has been to integrate these different kinds of information to reconstruct individual movements, deep below the surface.

In our study, we took a step forward to solving this problem with a powerful statistical approach. It’s quite intuitive. We treat animals as “particles” that can swim around and reproduce or dwindle. Particles that move in ways that align with the data we collected are more prolific breeders and come to dominate the (digital) population. Similar techniques can be used in military tracking because the data updating step, which drives particle frequency, can happen in real time.

It’s just like building a sandcastle. We have a bunch of particles and the collection of all these particles forms a 3D map of an animal’s possible locations.

This is a great advance for conservation. By integrating information from multiple technologies into the algorithm, we can build up more detailed pictures of animal movements in the ocean. We can map their patterns of space use, work out how long they spend in particular habitats and use this information to inform conservation action.

For flapper skate, we found that they spend a remarkable amount of time in the protected area, so the fisheries restrictions there should support local recovery. We also identified specific hotspots beyond protected areas, where additional management may be beneficial. This work takes us another step towards targeted, data-driven conservation.

We’re now refining our methods and software implementations to reduce computing time. We’re also further developing our analyses to reconstruct detailed animal tracks, identify egg nurseries and build immersive virtual reality experiences of the lives of animals underwater. There is still much more to learn about animals in the deep.

---

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 study was funded by Eawag, using data made available via the Movement Ecology of Flapper Skate project. Data collection was funded by the Marine Directorate, NatureScot and the Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland.

– ref. Introducing a new way to track animals in the deep blue – https://theconversation.com/introducing-a-new-way-to-track-animals-in-the-deep-blue-270592

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Lord, Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Employment Law, University of Salford

Women in the UK face a “motherhood penalty” in the workplace when they have a child. New figures from the Office of National Statistics show that mothers in England lose, on average, more than £65,000 in earnings across the five years after a first child. This gap is driven by reduced hours, stalled progression and job moves to fit around caring for a child.

These dynamics are acute in higher education. Promotion in academia is tightly linked to the uninterrupted production of research papers and grant proposals, as well as the ability to move between institutions and even countries.

Our research has found that patchy implementation of family-friendly policies and unsympathetic managerial cultures push women to work as if nothing has changed. They are required to give birth to the “ideal academic baby”: a child who never disrupts grant deadlines, seminars or student emails.

Universities have various policies in place for new parents: parental leave, flexible working, and accreditation schemes that are intended to help institutions promote gender equality. But what actually happens when an academic gets pregnant, takes leave and returns to work?

We followed that journey across four stages: pregnancy at work, maternity leave, return to work, and career progression. We’ve found that culture regularly defeats policy. Motherhood can feel professionally risky even where formal policies exist.

Viewed as less committed

We conducted in-depth interviews with 26 academic mothers from five different UK universities. During pregnancy, many interviewees described subtle but telling signals that they were now seen as less “able” or less committed.

One was discouraged from attending a career-development programme. Another was told she looked unsuited to lab work “in your condition”. A third reported colleagues simply stopped discussing career plans with her.

These moments matter because they set the tone for what follows. This can include leave arrangements that depend on goodwill rather than process, and returns to work that start with heavier loads than before. As one participant put it: “Motherhood should be renamed guilthood.”

Maternity leave itself often failed the basic test of organisational care. Several women said there was no real cover, so their supervisory and email duties quietly continued while they were supposedly on leave, which is both exhausting and unsustainable. Others returned to find their office moved or their role reorganised without consultation. Such experiences erode trust.

The return to work was frequently the hardest stage. Some departments offered empathy, phased returns and informal mentoring. However, many mothers described an experience of “invisible motherhood”: the sense that parenting should be kept out of sight because colleagues might infer that it meant lower ambition.

That norm is amplified by the UK’s university model. High-stakes research metrics, student-as-consumer expectations and stretched staffing narrows tolerance for absence or unpredictability.

Two universities with identical policies can feel radically different. Culture and especially the line manager relationship governs whether support is meaningful and useful.

Parliament’s women and equalities committee has concluded the UK’s parental leave system “does not support working families effectively”, and the government has opened a full review. Shared parental leave, designed to normalise care across genders, continues to see low uptake.

This limits the cultural shift universities say they want. Without more equal leave and stronger childcare infrastructure, mothers will keep carrying the larger career risk.

International comparisons show what better alignment looks like. Nordic countries pair generous, gender-neutral leave with strong childcare provision.

Sweden, for example, offers 480 days of paid parental leave per child. This has recently been expanded to allow transfer of some days to other carers such as grandparents, a policy that explicitly recognises care as a shared social responsibility.

UK universities cannot transplant those national systems, but they can emulate the cultural lesson: treat care as normal, predictable and plan-worthy, not as an individual inconvenience.

There are some reasons for optimism. Where departments were women-led or explicitly feminist in ethos, our research participants reported feeling “seen”, trusted and able to talk about their caring responsibilities without penalty. That points to a cultural truth often missed in compliance-driven equality work: belonging isn’t created by forms, it’s created by norms.

If universities want to keep talented scholars through the caregiving years, they need to retire the fantasy of the ideal academic baby – and the ideal worker who never has one.

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 UK universities are failing mothers on their staff – https://theconversation.com/how-uk-universities-are-failing-mothers-on-their-staff-268261

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Hibbs, HARP Doctoral Research Fellow and Haematology Registrar, Queen Mary University of London

You receive a phone call: the results from routine blood tests show a “low white cell count”. Your doctor explains that more investigations are necessary, perhaps a referral to the haematologists. This might represent something concerning.

But what if this “low white cell count” were completely normal for you, because of a harmless genetic variant shared with millions of people worldwide?

This scenario describes the Duffy null variant: a genetic variation that leads to fewer neutrophils – a type of white blood cell – circulating in the blood. Even though neutrophils fight infections, people with the variant aren’t at higher risk of illness.

The Duffy null variant protects against Plasmodium vivax malaria, a form of the disease that relies on the Duffy antigen to enter red blood cells. In regions of Africa and the Middle East where P. vivax once circulated widely, this variant became common precisely because it blocked the parasite’s entry.

However, when a doctor receives a blood test result, none of this context is present. All they see is a number – often in red – and a reference range which explains what “normal” should be. It is this reference range that guides interpretation of an individual blood test result.

The miscategorisation of neutrophil counts as “low” in people with the Duffy null variant can lead to real-world harms. These include anxiety, as a flagged “low” white cell count can sound like an early warning sign of serious illness.

It also drives avoidable bone marrow biopsies, because clinicians may worry about bone marrow failure or blood cancer and order invasive tests that aren’t actually needed.

People with the variant may be excluded from clinical trials because their neutrophil count appears to fall below strict eligibility cut-offs, despite being completely healthy. And it can even lead to reduced chemotherapy doses, as treatment algorithms automatically lower doses in response to neutrophil numbers, potentially compromising care.

In the past, this pattern was labelled “ethnic neutropenia”, but that term creates its own problems. Race and ethnicity are socially constructed categories, not biological determinants. They’re based on social histories, cultural identities and the ways societies classify people, rather than on precise genetic differences.

Medical practices and technologies can contribute to how socially constructed categories are made and reproduced. People grouped together under the same racial or ethnic label can have very different ancestries and health profiles, so these categories don’t reliably map onto people’s blood counts.

Using them to judge whether a neutrophil level is “normal” risks reinforcing crude groupings and misdiagnosis. What matters is a person’s Duffy status – the genetic factor that actually drives the difference in neutrophil numbers – and blood tests need to be interpreted accordingly.

New research led by Lauren Merz at the University of Michigan and Stephen Hibbs at Queen Mary University of London shows that more than 20% of people with the Duffy null variant are miscategorised as “abnormal” by current reference ranges.

This study created new blood count reference ranges, specific for healthy people with the Duffy null variant. These new Duffy null ranges were consistent for varied participants living in Namibia, Saudi Arabia, the UK and the US, and can be incorporated into clinical practice to support better interpretation and decision making.

What is a reference range?

This isn’t the first time that a reference range – the range of values doctors use to decide whether a test result is “normal” – has worked for some people but not others. Research shows that the HbA1c test, commonly used to diagnose and monitor type 2 diabetes, gives falsely low results in people with a genetic variant widespread among South Asian groups.

These miscategorisations raise a key question: what sort of technology is a reference range? When reference ranges appear in textbooks or on blood test reports, they look like they reveal fixed biological “truths”.

But approaches from science and technology studies encourage us to think differently about what biomedical practices and technologies do. They show how everyday medical practices produce and operationalise racial differences.

To understand this properly, we need to look at what happens in practice. Creating a reference range follows a set process. A laboratory identifies around 120 healthy people from the local population and measures their blood.

The third lowest result (the 2.5th percentile) becomes the “lower limit of normal”, and the third highest (the 97.5th percentile) becomes the “upper limit of normal”. Once a reference range is published, other hospitals can adopt it after checking it against as few as 20 people.

The problem is that these ranges are often built from samples taken mostly from majority groups in a particular region. As a result, they can miss important variation present in minoritised groups and those gaps can translate into mislabelling, misinterpretation and unnecessary worry for patients whose biology simply falls outside the narrow sample used to define “normal”.

While there are sophisticated systems and tools to verify the performance of blood testing machines and assays – the laboratory tests that measure things like cell counts, hormones or chemicals in the blood – there is no standard practice for re-examining reference ranges, even as population demographics change over time and across different locations.

Blood tests that work for everybody

It is time to update “normal” to better encompass the true variety that exists in human populations. This starts with incorporating new blood count reference ranges that adapt to Duffy status.

It also requires us to think carefully and critically about what purportedly neutral technologies and techniques like reference ranges do, and how medicine can work to reproduce racial categories.

This also extends to scrutinising and redesigning other medical practices that normalise one type of blood over another, such as chemotherapy dosing or clinical trial reporting.

We need to examine other everyday tools and practices used by healthcare staff, and ask: What does this technology do? What effects does it create? Does it work well for everybody? These questions illuminate how even routine practices can shape healthcare in ways that benefit some people more than others.

Stephen Hibbs receives funding from the Wellcome Trust through a HARP doctoral research fellowship.

Kari Lancaster has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. She has no disclosures to declare in relation to this work.

Christina Barriteau 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. Rethinking blood test reference ranges could make medicine fairer – and safer – https://theconversation.com/rethinking-blood-test-reference-ranges-could-make-medicine-fairer-and-safer-269474

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ezgi Unsal, Lecturer in Development Economics, SOAS, University of London

In a break from tradition, the next major UN climate summit will be hosted by Turkey but chaired by a different country, Australia. This is the first split arrangement in three decades of these summits, known as “Cops”. The unusual deal, devised to avoid diplomatic tension, highlights new alliances to fight climate change globally.

Cop31 will take place late next year in the Mediterranean city of Antalya. While a representative from Turkey will be formally elected as “the president”, Australia will appoint a vice-president to lead the negotiations.

The agreement was reached after almost a full year of stalemate, as both countries had refused to withdraw their bids to host. Turkey had previously stepped back from its bid to host Cop26, which ultimately took place in Glasgow in 2021. For this reason, it was determined to serve as host this time to represent developing nations, as a bridge between Asia and Europe.

Australia, by contrast, aimed to highlight the concerns of endangered Pacific island states through its role in the event. The final agreement between the two countries is unusual, yet it may open the door to greater pluralism and new forms of partnership.

Turkey’s role as host is distinct not only because of the unique arrangement with Australia, but also due to its unique position within the UN’s climate convention. Turkey signed the Paris agreement in 2016 but delayed ratifying it for five years.

As a founding member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – a group of largely high-income countries – Turkey was formally treated by the Paris agreement as an “industrialised” nation. That meant it was expected to provide financial support for emissions reduction efforts in developing nations – an obligation it disputed.

In 2021, Turkey finally secured a unique recognition as the only developing country among a list of OECD countries (known as annex I), allowing it to finally ratify the treaty.

This status still creates practical challenges. Unlike other developing countries, Turkey has only limited access to international climate finance such as the Green Climate Fund. As Ankara consistently raised the demand to be removed from annex 1, it is likely that the issue will surface during the Cop31 discussions.

Energy politics, climate ambitions

Sitting at the intersection of Europe, the Middle East and central Asia, Turkey also serves as a critical link for major oil and natural gas pipelines from Russia and the Caspian Sea to Europe.

As Europe seeks to reduce its dependence on Russian energy, its growing reliance on alternative routes has increased Turkey’s strategic significance. This geopolitical leverage shapes how Turkey approaches its climate diplomacy – and what it is likely to prioritise at Cop31.

After ratifying the Paris agreement, Turkey announced its target of reaching net zero emissions by 2053. There are credible proposals to phase out coal by 2030, while Turkey passed a “climate law” earlier this year to provide a legal framework for these transitions.

However, the feasibility of these targets remains uncertain. Partly, that’s because Turkey has an inconsistent record on complying with international law. But it’s also because the country’s energy production is booming.

Turkey is the world’s 15th-largest emitter of carbon dioxide, producing around 400 million to 500 million tonnes annually. Emissions are expected to keep rising as energy demand continues to increase in parallel with economic growth.

Although growth slowed after a 2018 currency crisis and the COVID shock, energy use is still projected to increase – just not as sharply as in the 2000s and early 2010s. Turkey’s pledge to cut emissions 40% by 2030 should therefore be understood as a reduction relative to a rising baseline.

As the economy boomed in the 2000s, Turkey more than doubled its energy generation capacity, with growth peaking in 2013. Wind and solar capacity grew rapidly, from virtually zero in the 1990s to around 17% in 2025, but most of the new capacity came from power plants fuelled by natural gas.

As the country pledged to phase out coal by 2030, coal plants were not prioritised during this expansion. Yet, the proliferation of gas power raises significant concerns about sustainability.

Adding to this uncertainty, a 2023 amendment now allows mining in previously protected forest areas, raising questions about whether Turkey’s legal framework can support a reliable and credible transition to net zero emissions.

All this means that when attention shifts to Antalya next year, Turkey will be under pressure to show its ambitious climate targets are more than just words. The world will be watching to see if a country so embedded in the global fossil fuel trade can help broker a deal that accelerates the end of that era.

Ezgi Unsal 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. Turkey will host the next UN climate summit – here’s how it plans to use its moment in the spotlight – https://theconversation.com/turkey-will-host-the-next-un-climate-summit-heres-how-it-plans-to-use-its-moment-in-the-spotlight-270495

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Kendall, Professor of Geophysics, University of Oxford

You’re probably reading this article on a phone or laptop containing more than 30 different metals. Some will be common: aluminium casing, copper wires. But other metals are less familiar and much more scarce. Each iPhone contains less than a gram of lithium, for instance, but would not function without it.

We are in the midst of a geopolitically charged race for lithium and other so-called critical minerals. These materials are crucial for renewable energy, transport, data centres, aerospace and defence, among other things, and the transition to net zero will place unprecedented pressure on their supplies.

Accordingly, the UK has just published a new Critical Minerals Strategy, identifying 34 of these raw materials as essential for national security and the economy. Meeting demand for them will be a monumental challenge.

Take copper: even though it is a well-established commodity, in the coming decades the world will need more of it than has ever been mined in human history. Yet opening a new mine takes a decade and costs billions.

Other minerals, such as cobalt or the 17 “rare earth elements”, present a different problem: supplies are concentrated in countries with competing strategic interests or developing nations, and can be hard to access.

For instance, most high-performance magnets – including those in wind turbines – use the rare earth neodymium, and the vast majority currently comes from China. The metal cobalt is used in batteries: about half of the world’s reserves are in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Historically, mining has caused significant social and environmental harm in host countries – frequently developing nations – while delivering most of the benefits to consumers in wealthier countries.

Wealthier countries could just turn a blind eye to those harms, but there is a growing awareness of the impact of mining. This, combined with the concentration of supplies in certain countries, creates a challenge for places like the UK, which don’t have critical mineral resources.

Disruptive technologies

New extraction technologies are emerging in the UK and elsewhere. While some companies are making progress with “green mining” – using electric vehicles and renewable energy – the most promising solutions are more radical.

One new avenue is recovering geothermal energy alongside critical minerals. The hot fluids beneath ancient volcanoes can be rich in lithium, gold, silver and other critical elements, with each volcanic system offering its own distinct mix of resources.

Tapping into this heat can offer a double benefit: clean energy and useful minerals. In Cornwall, south-west England, there are plans to do this at a reopened lithium mine.

Synthetic biology is another exciting development. This involves scientists modifying microbe DNA to selectively scavenge specific elements from their surroundings, such as battery waste and sewage sludge. These micro-organisms could recover resources even in extreme environments.

---

Read more:
As mining returns to Cornwall, lithium ambitions tussle with local heritage

---

Circular resources

Making better use of the resources we already have is essential. This goes beyond traditional recycling to develop new ways to turn by-products and discarded materials into valuable resources, while simultaneously cleaning up legacy pollution.

For example, mining tailings and coal fly ash contain recoverable metals, and innovative “smart” minerals and microbes can be harnessed to extract them.

However, recycling alone won’t meet future demand. Many metals, while highly recyclable, remain in use for decades before re-entering the supply chain. Take nickel, for instance. It’s an important battery metal, but can stay in circulation for 30 years or more, limiting its availability in the short term.

Mining that does not curse the locals

Future mining must avoid the “resource curse” – the paradox where resource-rich countries often fail to benefit fully from their own mineral wealth. Principles for a new approach should include investment in local industries in producer countries so they can make batteries and magnets, not just export ore.

They should also require genuine community engagement, giving mining de facto permission and acceptance from locals. This unwritten set of positive (or at least tolerant) attitudes is sometimes termed the “social licence” to operate – and without it, mining operations can fail.

Mining companies should promote best practices with regard to the environment, health and safety, and workers rights. Regulators need to enforce environmental protection with teeth, including rewilding and ecosystem restoration after a mine has been emptied.

The mining industry has a bad reputation for a reason, with a history of high-profile environmental disasters. The growing emphasis on environmental, social and governance criteria for investors is encouraging, and may help deliver change.

The UK government’s new strategy outlines promising goals on domestic development, the circular economy and supply chain resilience – but its measures of success don’t match the ambition. Its support for innovation is also cautious and focuses on established approaches. What’s needed is an entirely new way of thinking about how to secure these resources.

This means recovering materials from new sources, using them more wisely, ensuring mining communities benefit, and cleaning up environmental damage. It also means building resilient supply chains that can withstand a major change of government, an economic crash, or some other geopolitical shock.

Michael Kendall and co-authors have received historical funding from UKRI to work on critical resources.

Caitlin McElroy and Jon Blundy 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. The UK must secure supplies of 34 critical minerals says new report – here’s how – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-must-secure-supplies-of-34-critical-minerals-says-new-report-heres-how-269022

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Sparks, PhD Candidate in Entomology, Swansea University

Scientists have discovered an ant species which uses a technique so devious to start a colony that it could change our understanding of animal social systems.

Beginning a colony can be perilous for a queen ant, as there is a high chance of being eaten by other animals while she is alone and therefore unprotected. Having yet to found a colony and raise her own workers, the lone queen must travel above ground to find a suitable nesting location.

Because of these risks, some ants species have evolved workarounds where, instead of doing the work themselves, they benefit from another ant species’ labour.

A new study has found that newborn queens of Lasius orientalis (found across Eurasia) and L. umbratus (also found across Eurasia and possibly the US) have developed a strategy that has not been observed until now. They attack the queens of other species, L. flavus and L. japonicus, by using the queen’s own workers to kill her.

To do this, the parasitic queen uses a chemical, which has yet to be identified, although based on what we know about ants it is probably a formic acid-based chemical. Formic acid is a defensive chemical created within the bodies of some groups of ants that don’t have a sting (it is found in nettles).

The formic acid can bind with other chemicals produced in various glands within the ant, allowing for a wide range of uses – one of these being as an alert pheromone.

The parasitic queen ant sneaks into a colony of L. flavus or L. japonicus (the hosts) and sprays the queen with this chemical. This changes the scent of the sprayed queen, tricking her workers into believing that she is a threat and causing them to attack and kill her.

This gives room for the parasitic queen ant to take her place as the new queen of the colony, without risking injury by attacking directly. She will then use the old queen’s workers to rear her own young until they eventually take over the colony, replacing the host species with her own.

In other insects, workers can gain direct benefit from matricide. For example in bumblebees, only the queen is allowed to reproduce and worker reproduction is suppressed by aggressive encounters (including egg-eating) and pheromones from the queen along with a select number of specialised workers.

When the colony is large enough and there is sufficient food, the queen stops producing female workers and instead switches to producing male drones and new queens (gynes) to begin the next generation.

At this time the workers are also able to produce male eggs as these can be laid without the need to mate. The workers and queen compete to have their own eggs survive, eating each others’ eggs. To increase the chances of their own (male) eggs surviving and going on to reproduce, a group of workers will sometimes kill their queen.

This matricide, although incredibly complex in its causes, and still not fully understood, clearly benefits the bumblebee workers. In contrast, the matricide caused by the parasitic queen ant provides no benefit to the original colony or its workers.

---

Read more:
Betting on sporting events may lessen viewing enjoyment

---

This form of matricide opens up new possibilities for scientists studying the use of chemical communications within “eusocial” (highly organised) insects. This chemical trickery may be more common than scientists think. There’s still much we don’t understand about how ants communicate and the role of different chemicals within this.

Many animals, including humans, benefit from living in social groups, and these social systems can vary widely across animal groups. Matriarchy is a social system in which one female is in charge. It is unusual but appears across animal groups from mammals to insects, and it may have different causes.

Female orcas and elephants live longer than males, accumulating knowledge and passing on behaviour and traditions to younger group members, increasing their chances of survival. The oldest female dominates the close-knit family group, as she can guide them to food when it is scarce.

In spotted hyenas, the young males are forced to leave their own clans and must join other matriarchal clans as the lowest-ranking individuals in a hierarchy dominated by females.

Naked mole rats only have one reproductive female at a time, the queen. As with bees and ants, the presence of the queen suppresses the other females’ hormones, which prevents them from breeding.

The role of these females centres on the care of young, alongside other specific roles such as tunnellers and food gatherers. These naked mole rat groups are not without competition, however, with evidence from captive populations that female workers may kill and replace the queen.

Most eusocial insect groups are matriarchal, although termites have both a king and queen. Nearly all ants are eusocial. The main castes are the egg-laying queen, short-lived male drones and sterile female workers.

The workers serve the colony by foraging for food, transporting resources and caring for the eggs of the next generation. Being unable to reproduce, a worker’s only route to passing on their genes is through the survival of the colony. This promotes a social structure with high cooperation and low competition, different to the within-colony competition that can happen in naked mole rats.

---

Read more:
One queen ant, two species: the discovery that reshapes what ‘family’ means in nature

---

Normally, when queen ants infiltrate other colonies, they use chemicals to disguise themselves as part of their host colony (chemical mimicry) or to remain undetected (chemical camouflage). Some queen ants sneak into other species’ colonies and trick them into rearing her workers, who then go and raid other species’ colonies, bringing back pupae which become slave workers.

Other queens, for example Monomorium inquilinum, become permanent social parasites without killing the original queen. These invaders (who use chemicals to camouflage themselves in the colony) depend on the host workers for food, and trick them into raising the invaders’ eggs, which are often reproductive young.

Finally, some ants such as Acromyrmex insinuator are temporary social parasites, entering a host colony, killing the queen and taking over the colony until their own workers replace those of the host.

As the new study shows, we may only be starting to understand the complexities of matriarchal animal societies.

Matthew Sparks receives funding from a PhD studentship through an EPSRC UKRI Doctoral Training Partnership between Swansea University and Rentokil Initial under the name ‘Characterisation and manipulation of urban light environments for fly control’.

Wendy Harris 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. The parasitic ant who makes workers kill their own queen – https://theconversation.com/the-parasitic-ant-who-makes-workers-kill-their-own-queen-270101

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christel Nielsen, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Lund University

Can tattoos protect your skin from the sun’s harmful rays, or do they make things worse? A new study I conducted with colleagues suggests there may be cause for concern. We found that people with tattoos had a 29% higher risk of developing melanoma, a serious form of skin cancer often linked to ultraviolet (UV) exposure.

However, tattoos did not appear to increase the risk of squamous cell carcinoma, another type of skin cancer related to UV damage. Although both cancers share a common cause, they arise from different cell types and differ in severity, with melanoma being far more dangerous.

Tattoos are a powerful form of self-expression and a cornerstone of modern identity. In Sweden, around one in three adults is tattooed, showing how body art has moved firmly into the mainstream. Yet despite their popularity, scientists still do not know whether tattoos have any impact on health, or how any potential effects might unfold over time.

Epidemiologists are now trying to answer these questions. The work is challenging because people who choose to get tattoos often differ from those who do not in ways that can influence health outcomes.

Another difficulty is that most health records do not note whether someone is tattooed, which means long-term patterns are hard to study. Without this basic information, it becomes difficult to know whether tattoos themselves play a role in health or whether differences are driven by other factors.

Melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma both develop slowly and are relatively uncommon, which makes long-term research challenging. Following large groups of tattooed and non-tattooed people for many years would be expensive and time-consuming. So our team used a different approach. We started with people who had already been diagnosed with cancer and looked backward to see who had tattoos. This type of research, known as a case-control study, is an efficient way to detect potential associations.

Sweden maintains high-quality national registers that record information on health and demographics. From the National Cancer Register, we identified everyone aged 20 to 60 who was diagnosed with melanoma in 2017 or squamous cell carcinoma between 2014 and 2017.

This included 2,880 melanoma cases and 2,821 squamous cell carcinoma cases. For each case, we selected three comparison people of the same age and sex from the Total Population Register, who had not been diagnosed with skin cancer.

We then sent questionnaires to all participants, asking about tattoos, including decorative tattoos, permanent makeup and medical tattoos, as well as their size, location, and age at first tattoo. This allowed us to establish whether someone had been tattooed before or after developing cancer.

A total of 5,695 people took part in the melanoma study (1,598 with melanoma) and 6,151 in the squamous cell carcinoma study (1,600 with that cancer).

People with tattoos were 29% more likely to develop melanoma compared with those without tattoos. The risk increase seemed to be highest in those who had tattoos for more than ten years, although the numbers were smaller in this group, so results should be interpreted cautiously.

For squamous cell carcinoma, tattoos made no difference. The results were consistent across analyses, suggesting no link between tattoos and this type of skin cancer.

We also found no evidence that larger tattoos increased risk. This was unexpected, since larger tattoos contain more ink and therefore more potentially harmful substances.

One possible explanation is that tattoo ink does not remain confined to the skin. The body’s immune system treats it as a foreign substance and transports some ink particles to the lymph nodes. These particles can stay there long-term. While we do not yet know whether this causes harm, it could potentially lead to chronic inflammation, which has been linked to cancer development.

Another explanation may be measurement error: people tend to overestimate tattoo size. Future studies using more precise measures may help clarify this.

Lifestyle and confounding factors

What makes this study unique is the range of lifestyle factors we could consider. We included data on sun exposure (both occupational and recreational), tanning bed use, smoking, education level, marital status and household income. We also factored in skin type, pigmentation, age and sex.

These details matter because they can influence both who gets tattoos and who develops cancer. For instance, people who spend a lot of time in the sun may be more likely to have tattoos and to develop melanoma. Accounting for these differences reduces bias and strengthens confidence in the results.

In research, this issue is known as confounding. If confounding factors are not properly controlled, they can distort findings and lead to misleading conclusions.

Recent US research suggested that large tattoos might even reduce the risk of melanoma, but that study did not control for key factors such as skin type or UV exposure. The results may therefore reflect behaviour rather than biology. For example, people with large tattoos may avoid sunbathing or tanning beds to protect their body art, which would naturally reduce UV damage.

---

Read more:
Do multiple tattoos protect against skin cancer, as a recent study suggests?

---

So, do tattoos cause skin cancer? The simple answer is that we do not know yet. Our results suggest a possible link between tattoos and melanoma, but one study is never enough to prove causation.

More research is needed to explore potential biological mechanisms, such as chronic inflammation, and to examine how different types of ink or colours might interact with UV exposure. The composition of tattoo pigments varies widely, and many contain compounds that can break down into harmful by-products when exposed to sunlight or laser removal treatments.

If you have tattoos, there is no need for panic, but awareness matters. Continue to protect your skin from UV radiation just as you would otherwise: use sunscreen, avoid excessive tanning and check your skin regularly for new or changing moles.

Our findings highlight the need for long-term monitoring and better data collection on tattoos in health records. With tattoos now common worldwide, this is an important public health issue. Continued research into the biology of tattoos and their long-term effects will help ensure that people can make informed choices about their bodies, their art and their health.

Christel Nielsen receives funding from The Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development, The Crafoord Foundation, and The Magnus Bergvall Foundation.

– ref. Tattoos may raise the risk of melanoma skin cancer – new research – https://theconversation.com/tattoos-may-raise-the-risk-of-melanoma-skin-cancer-new-research-266809

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cathrine Jansson-Boyd, Professor of Consumer Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University

It is that time of the year again – Black Friday is almost upon us. What used to be just an American event has now taken over the calendar in many other countries as one of the key shopping events of the year.

However, market research by investment platform Aegon, conducted on 2024’s Black Friday shoppers, found that almost 60% of participants would spend their money differently, if they could go back in time.

Regret is not unusual when consumers buy on impulse. Afterwards, they may ask themselves whether they should have bought the Sony television rather than the Samsung. There is a lot to be said for trying to engage in careful decision making.

But that’s easier said than done. When we come across products that seem cheap or fairly priced, the same part of our brains that deals with pleasure is activated. Couple this feel good factor with an extra sense of urgency around sales like Black Friday and consumers often feel compelled to buy something. Such urgency may be created by stating that the product is only available at a discounted price for 24 hours or that there are only a limited number of products.

There are things you can do to curb your spending and avoid being tempted by clever marketing techniques, though.

1. Never shop when tired

Fatigue tends to lead to less rational decisions and lowers your self-control. Making decisions requires mental energy and that energy is limited.

When you are tired, your emotions tend to take over and you are more likely to be tempted by huge savings and items that look pretty, even if they are not something that you need.

2. Shop in the morning

This is when you have mental sharpness and therefore will probably make better decisions. Try to avoid making major decisions later in the day, as that’s when your willpower and focus start to dip as decision fatigue kicks in.

Decision fatigue is mental and emotional strain that generally occurs when people have been engaging in too many choices. This happens to most people at some point during the day as we make hundreds of decisions everyday.

3. Don’t rush

Always allow yourself enough time so you can think carefully about what you are buying. Adding just one second to the time you take when considering a purchase could help you make better decisions.

Time allows the brain to collect additional information and filter out aspects that are not relevant. For example, imagining that you are conducting a search for an iron online. As you look at the options there are some flashing banners on the side, preventing you from focusing on what you want.

Such a distraction can divert you away from product attributes that may otherwise influence your choice. Adding a second allows you to refocus and helps you to ignore the flashing banner.

4. Do your homework

Not everything on offer is a good deal. Make sure you know what the items cost previously so that you know how much it is reduced by. The easiest way to find this out is by asking an AI tool to tell you previous prices.

It has been reported that in previous years, as little as 2% of all the Black Friday offers were at their cheapest price compared to six months before and six months after. Knowing what the items cost previously can help your brain put the brakes on and stop yourself from making rash decisions.

5. Make a list and add a budget

It will reduce the temptation to engage in excessive spending.

6. Try not to purchase things using a card

You are likely to spend more when you use a card or your phone to pay. Instead, when possible, use cash. That way you can see how the money in your wallet is disappearing and you are more likely to stop spending when you are out of cash. Think of how aware you are of your budget during a game of Monopoly when your paper money starts to run low.

7. Don’t touch any products

If you like shopping in-store, you should know that research has shown you are more willing to buy products and pay more for them if you touch them. So, try to keep your hands to yourself.

8. Ask yourself why something is reduced

With time pressure hanging over your head, you may not consider why a product is on sale. Perhaps it is as simple as a newer model having been released recently or possibly because previous purchasers have not viewed them favourably. Just to be on the safe side, check out some reviews for the sales item just to make sure you are getting what you really want.

As long as you are sensible, and taking some precautionary steps, you should find that you will be more satisfied with what you bought.

Cathrine Jansson-Boyd 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. Eight ways to resist spending too much on Black Friday bargains – https://theconversation.com/eight-ways-to-resist-spending-too-much-on-black-friday-bargains-270317

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maha Rafi Atal, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow

Since the election last year, the UK government has said economic growth is its top priority, as a way to improve living standards, cut NHS waiting lists and ease pressure on household finances. But with the Office for Budget Responsibility predicting growth this year to be a below-average 1.5%, it seems things haven’t gone entirely to plan.

So would Rachel Reeves’ second budget provide any glimmers of hope? Here’s how our panel of experts reacted.

Tax-raising budget that may encourage growth – but doesn’t guarantee it

Maha Rafi Atal, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, University of Glasgow

This is a substantially tax-raising budget, but one that tries to obscure where the burden will fall. Rather than confronting the need to raise the basic rate of income tax, the government has opted for a prolonged freeze in thresholds. This is, in effect, a sizeable stealth tax: as wages rise with inflation, more middle-earners are pulled into higher-rate bands.

However, this approach is still more weighted towards raising revenue from higher earners than a broad-based rise that would spread the load across the income distribution. A sharp break between the basic and higher rates – an unusual feature of the UK income tax setup – remains. Changes to national insurance follow a similar stealth logic. The rate remains unchanged, yet its scope has widened, particularly through restrictions on pension salary-sacrifice.

Whether these kinds of changes break Labour’s manifesto commitments not to raise taxes on “working people” is increasingly a matter of semantics. Many working people’s take-home pay will be less than it would have been, even if the headline tax rates have not changed.

One positive consequence of raising the revenue this way, however, is that individuals and households – not just employers – will carry much of the cost. Some measures that would have directly targeted businesses, like a bank windfall tax, have been abandoned.

This makes the budget more supportive of growth than early reports anticipated, because taxes that fall primarily on employers take funding away from things like opening new facilities or creating jobs.

Yet the growth forecasts remain weak because there is still no plan to raise productivity. Government investment in skills and infrastructure is lacking, and tighter immigration controls (which the government is also imposing) limit labour supply and impose other transaction costs on businesses. Growth requires broader changes to these other aspects of economic policy and cannot be generated through tax reform alone.

£3 trillion government debt weighs heavily on Reeves’ budget choices

Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City St George’s, University of London

The chancellor has announced measures to raise £26 billion in her budget statement. Driving her decision is the need to cap the size of the government’s debt, which, at £2.9 trillion amounts to 95% of the total size of the UK economy.

But also feeding into her choices is the need to abide by her self-imposed fiscal rules. These require her to cut the deficit (the difference between tax revenue and spending) every year for the next five years. An additional challenge is that the cost of paying interest on this huge national debt has gone up sharply in recent years, with the government now paying more in interest that it spends on education.

The fiscal rules are designed to reassure financial markets, which lend the government the money it needs, that the chancellor is prudent with the country’s finances. Tax rises were necessary to meet Reeves’ “ironclad” rules (based on the forecasts of spending watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility) with the aim of stabilising that huge debt.

The problem is that small changes in any of the forecasts can throw the government off course. As the former head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Robert Chote, noted: “The chances of any economic or fiscal forecast being accurate in every dimension are infinitesimally small.” However, Reeves has now left herself more “fiscal headroom” (the amount she can increase spending further without breaking her rules) – £21.7 billion.

She has gone some way to acknowledging the problem of predictions by making two changes in the fiscal rules. Last year she exempted investment spending – on building roads, power stations and houses – from the rules, in the hope of encouraging economic growth.

And this year, she has announced that the Treasury will produce a budget forecast only once a year. This will avoid the difficult spring statement she had to present this year.

But neither of these changes are guaranteed to give her the stability she needs to encourage economic growth and security. Relying on a single OBR forecast makes each budget a hostage to fortune. It might be wise to give a range of economic and revenue forecasts, as the Bank of England already does. The very concept of a fixed amount of “headroom” is probably too rigid and leads to continual changes in policies and taxes.

Since 1997 when fiscal rules were introduced, the Treasury has announced ten sets of rules with 28 different specific targets. For example, when once it was prudent to keep the debt below 40% of GDP, now 100% is an acceptable target. So it is clear that the markets themselves do not view the fiscal rules as immutable, and would probably like more stability and predictability in government spending and tax policy.

---

Read more:
What the budget could mean for you – experts react to the chancellor’s announcement

---

Where is the investment in infrastructure and industry?

Phil Tomlinson, Professor of Industrial Strategy and Regional Development, University of Bath

Budget day can often feel like Groundhog day. The same old problems – chronic under-investment, crumbling infrastructure and weak productivity – continue to bedevil the UK economy, with low growth significantly reducing the chancellor’s room for fiscal manoeuvre. Hers is not the first government to find itself unable to break this doom loop.

So in her second budget, Rachel Reeves focused mainly on tax-raising measures. There was some mention of a commitment to raising investment in critical infrastructure for sectors like transport, energy and digital development, but the details were set out earlier this year.

Pre-budget announcements also included a commitment to employ an extra 350 planners to support the government’s ambitious plan to build 1.5 million homes over this parliament. As well as providing a boost to the construction industry, building more affordable homes should improve the mobility of the labour market.

And making it easier for workers to relocate to regions with better job opportunities (which align with their skills) will give a much needed boost to productivity. It may also attract new private investment in local industries and “left behind” regions of the UK.

The critical part of any infrastructure project is actually getting it done. But often major projects, after being announced to great fanfare, can become bogged down in delays caused by a lack of skilled labour and changing economic circumstances.

To be a success it is vital to ensure that project targets are set early, and resources are ring-fenced. There also needs to be sufficient funding set aside to support skills and training that align with long-term infrastructure priorities. The budget included little about this.

If the government wants drivers to switch to electric, it must be wary of the powers of dissuasion

David Bailey, Professor of Business Economics, University of Birmingham

From April 2027, fuel duty rates – frozen back in 2010 and then cut in 2022 – will rise again in line with inflation. This was inevitable. The freeze has cost the government something like £10 billion a year in lost revenue.

And as more drivers switch to electric vehicles, fuel duty (which even with the freeze raises some £35 billion a year for the government) will start to dry up. The government needs to find cash, and fuel duty is a lever it feels it can pull.

More positive news for drivers is the 2026 arrival of the “fuel finder” scheme which will force petrol forecourts to share real-time prices so that customers can shop around more easily.

As expected, a pay-per-mile tax for electric and hybrid vehicles will be introduced, from April 2028. And while a long-term shift to pay-per-mile could make a lot of sense, the devil is very much in the detail. Electric vehicle (EV) owners in rural areas, who typically drive longer distances, could be badly hit, and the move needs to be carefully thought through.

The Office for Budget Responsibility thinks this could bring in £1.1 billion by 2029. But it could also put some people off making the switch to EVs, which is probably why the government has expanded EV grants to encourage take up.

A big, missed opportunity to shift the dial on EVs came in the government failing to cut VAT on public charging from 20% to 5%, to match the VAT rate on domestic electricity. This means drivers who can’t charge at home will continue to pay more, something which really needs to be tackled if the government wants people without private parking to make the switch.

---

Read more:
Electric vehicle owners face new pay-per-mile tax – what could be the environmental costs?

---

Phil Tomlinson receives funding from the Innovation and Research Caucus (IRC).

David Bailey, Maha Rafi Atal, and Steve Schifferes 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. What will the budget mean for economic growth? Experts give their view – https://theconversation.com/what-will-the-budget-mean-for-economic-growth-experts-give-their-view-270715

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maha Rafi Atal, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow

Since the election last year, the UK government has said economic growth is its top priority, as a way to improve living standards, cut NHS waiting lists and ease pressure on household finances. But with the Office for Budget Responsibility predicting growth this year to be a below-average 1.5%, it seems things haven’t gone entirely to plan.

So would Rachel Reeves’ second budget provide any glimmers of hope? Here’s how our panel of experts reacted.

Tax-raising budget that may encourage growth – but doesn’t guarantee it

Maha Rafi Atal, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, University of Glasgow

This is a substantially tax-raising budget, but one that tries to obscure where the burden will fall. Rather than confronting the need to raise the basic rate of income tax, the government has opted for a prolonged freeze in thresholds. This is, in effect, a sizeable stealth tax: as wages rise with inflation, more middle-earners are pulled into higher-rate bands.

However, this approach is still more weighted towards raising revenue from higher earners than a broad-based rise that would spread the load across the income distribution. A sharp break between the basic and higher rates – an unusual feature of the UK income tax setup – remains. Changes to national insurance follow a similar stealth logic. The rate remains unchanged, yet its scope has widened, particularly through restrictions on pension salary-sacrifice.

Whether these kinds of changes break Labour’s manifesto commitments not to raise taxes on “working people” is increasingly a matter of semantics. Many working people’s take-home pay will be less than it would have been, even if the headline tax rates have not changed.

One positive consequence of raising the revenue this way, however, is that individuals and households – not just employers – will carry much of the cost. Some measures that would have directly targeted businesses, like a bank windfall tax, have been abandoned.

This makes the budget more supportive of growth than early reports anticipated, because taxes that fall primarily on employers take funding away from things like opening new facilities or creating jobs.

Yet the growth forecasts remain weak because there is still no plan to raise productivity. Government investment in skills and infrastructure is lacking, and tighter immigration controls (which the government is also imposing) limit labour supply and impose other transaction costs on businesses. Growth requires broader changes to these other aspects of economic policy and cannot be generated through tax reform alone.

£3 trillion government debt weighs heavily on Reeves’ budget choices

Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City St George’s, University of London

The chancellor has announced measures to raise £26 billion in her budget statement. Driving her decision is the need to cap the size of the government’s debt, which, at £2.9 trillion amounts to 95% of the total size of the UK economy.

But also feeding into her choices is the need to abide by her self-imposed fiscal rules. These require her to cut the deficit (the difference between tax revenue and spending) every year for the next five years. An additional challenge is that the cost of paying interest on this huge national debt has gone up sharply in recent years, with the government now paying more in interest that it spends on education.

The fiscal rules are designed to reassure financial markets, which lend the government the money it needs, that the chancellor is prudent with the country’s finances. Tax rises were necessary to meet Reeves’ “ironclad” rules (based on the forecasts of spending watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility) with the aim of stabilising that huge debt.

The problem is that small changes in any of the forecasts can throw the government off course. As the former head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Robert Chote, noted: “The chances of any economic or fiscal forecast being accurate in every dimension are infinitesimally small.” However, Reeves has now left herself more “fiscal headroom” (the amount she can increase spending further without breaking her rules) – £21.7 billion.

She has gone some way to acknowledging the problem of predictions by making two changes in the fiscal rules. Last year she exempted investment spending – on building roads, power stations and houses – from the rules, in the hope of encouraging economic growth.

And this year, she has announced that the Treasury will produce a budget forecast only once a year. This will avoid the difficult spring statement she had to present this year.

But neither of these changes are guaranteed to give her the stability she needs to encourage economic growth and security. Relying on a single OBR forecast makes each budget a hostage to fortune. It might be wise to give a range of economic and revenue forecasts, as the Bank of England already does. The very concept of a fixed amount of “headroom” is probably too rigid and leads to continual changes in policies and taxes.

Since 1997 when fiscal rules were introduced, the Treasury has announced ten sets of rules with 28 different specific targets. For example, when once it was prudent to keep the debt below 40% of GDP, now 100% is an acceptable target. So it is clear that the markets themselves do not view the fiscal rules as immutable, and would probably like more stability and predictability in government spending and tax policy.

---

Read more:
What the budget could mean for you – experts react to the chancellor’s announcement

---

Where is the investment in infrastructure and industry?

Phil Tomlinson, Professor of Industrial Strategy and Regional Development, University of Bath

Budget day can often feel like Groundhog day. The same old problems – chronic under-investment, crumbling infrastructure and weak productivity – continue to bedevil the UK economy, with low growth significantly reducing the chancellor’s room for fiscal manoeuvre. Hers is not the first government to find itself unable to break this doom loop.

So in her second budget, Rachel Reeves focused mainly on tax-raising measures. There was some mention of a commitment to raising investment in critical infrastructure for sectors like transport, energy and digital development, but the details were set out earlier this year.

Pre-budget announcements also included a commitment to employ an extra 350 planners to support the government’s ambitious plan to build 1.5 million homes over this parliament. As well as providing a boost to the construction industry, building more affordable homes should improve the mobility of the labour market.

And making it easier for workers to relocate to regions with better job opportunities (which align with their skills) will give a much needed boost to productivity. It may also attract new private investment in local industries and “left behind” regions of the UK.

The critical part of any infrastructure project is actually getting it done. But often major projects, after being announced to great fanfare, can become bogged down in delays caused by a lack of skilled labour and changing economic circumstances.

To be a success it is vital to ensure that project targets are set early, and resources are ring-fenced. There also needs to be sufficient funding set aside to support skills and training that align with long-term infrastructure priorities. The budget included little about this.

If the government wants drivers to switch to electric, it must be wary of the powers of dissuasion

David Bailey, Professor of Business Economics, University of Birmingham

From April 2027, fuel duty rates – frozen back in 2010 and then cut in 2022 – will rise again in line with inflation. This was inevitable. The freeze has cost the government something like £10 billion a year in lost revenue.

And as more drivers switch to electric vehicles, fuel duty (which even with the freeze raises some £35 billion a year for the government) will start to dry up. The government needs to find cash, and fuel duty is a lever it feels it can pull.

More positive news for drivers is the 2026 arrival of the “fuel finder” scheme which will force petrol forecourts to share real-time prices so that customers can shop around more easily.

As expected, a pay-per-mile tax for electric and hybrid vehicles will be introduced, from April 2028. And while a long-term shift to pay-per-mile could make a lot of sense, the devil is very much in the detail. Electric vehicle (EV) owners in rural areas, who typically drive longer distances, could be badly hit, and the move needs to be carefully thought through.

The Office for Budget Responsibility thinks this could bring in £1.1 billion by 2029. But it could also put some people off making the switch to EVs, which is probably why the government has expanded EV grants to encourage take up.

A big, missed opportunity to shift the dial on EVs came in the government failing to cut VAT on public charging from 20% to 5%, to match the VAT rate on domestic electricity. This means drivers who can’t charge at home will continue to pay more, something which really needs to be tackled if the government wants people without private parking to make the switch.

---

Read more:
Electric vehicle owners face new pay-per-mile tax – what could be the environmental costs?

---

Phil Tomlinson receives funding from the Innovation and Research Caucus (IRC).

David Bailey, Maha Rafi Atal, and Steve Schifferes 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. What will the budget means for economic growth? Experts give their view – https://theconversation.com/what-will-the-budget-means-for-economic-growth-experts-give-their-view-270715