Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Becky Alexis-Martin, Lecturer in Peace Studies and International Development, University of Bradford

Why do people start wars even though it hurts their country too – and they might lose?

Grace, 9, Belfast

Before governments, countries and writing, there was war. People have always fought with each other. Archaeologists have discovered skeletons with weapon injuries that are over 10,000 years old.

Wars are very serious because they hurt people and the environment. They happen for many different reasons, and each war is different. People who start wars often think that the short-term benefits of a war are worth the harm to their own people. But they don’t always understand the long-term consequences of their actions.

Experts use something called the “just war theory” to understand whether it’s ever OK to fight a war. This is a very old, but useful, set of ideas that help people decide if a war is fair, how soldiers should behave and how to protect people who are not fighting, like children and families.

---

Curious Kids is a series by The Conversation that gives children the chance to have their questions about the world answered by experts. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.com and make sure you include the asker’s first name, age and town or city. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we’ll do our very best.

---

Just war theory says that countries have a right to defend themselves from invasion when another country attacks them. However, it also says that the harm from war must not be worse than the problem, that someone must actually be able to win and that people should try talking, negotiating and making agreements before they fight.

It provides rules for countries at war to follow. The rules say that normal people and the things that they need, such as hospitals, power plants and schools, should never be attacked because they help everyone live safely.

These ancient ideas have become part of the modern international laws and agreements that help make our world more peaceful. Unfortunately, not all countries follow just war theory when they go to war. Thankfully, we have laws in place to punish the leaders or soldiers who break the rules.

Why do wars start?

Wars can start due to a disagreement, fear or a desire for more power. Unfortunately, some leaders will choose war because they don’t want to appear weak. Or they might go to war to distract their own people and stay in control, because they feel vulnerable and unpopular. They might make a bad decision, really believe that they are right, then underestimate how long the war will last. The best leaders do not start wars in this way, do not make these mistakes and care about their people’s long-term wellbeing.

Another reason why people start wars is because they think that invading another country will make them stronger or richer. As we use up things we cannot easily replace, such as fossil fuels for our cars and rare metals for our phones and computers, this increases competition between countries to own the remaining resources.

Peace experts like me also explain that climate change contributes to wars, as it makes it harder for people to access good water and farmland. It is so much better for everyone when countries bargain with each other and share resources, instead of starting wars.

Even though wars are happening now in countries like Ukraine, Afghanistan and Iran, most countries still solve their problems peacefully by talking and working together.

Many experts think that wars are evidence of failure, and that everyone loses when they fight instead of working together to create agreements and compromises. Pacifists believe that war is always wrong and that we must strive to find peaceful solutions. I think that they have the right idea, and that a more peaceful world is definitely possible.

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

– ref. Why do leaders go to war when it could damage their own people too? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-leaders-go-to-war-when-it-could-damage-their-own-people-too-277405

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christine Loscher, Professor of Immunology, Dublin City University

Spring is just around the corner. While many look forward to the warmer weather after the long winter months, others may be filled with dread as spring marks the start of hay fever season. If this is you, the good news is there are plenty of things you can do ahead of hay fever season to make symptoms more manageable.

Hay fever affects roughly one in four UK adults. Symptoms are caused by three different types of pollen: tree, grass and weed pollen. As hay fever season typically runs from March to September, this means that specific types of pollen are responsible for symptoms at different times.

The early part of the season is dominated by tree pollen. Mid-season, symptoms are caused by grass pollen and by late season it’s weed pollen. But regardless of the type of pollen, the hay fever symptoms they cause are the same.

In people who suffer from hay fever, the immune system wrongly interprets the presence of pollen to be dangerous and so it mounts an immune response. This involves the generation of antibodies – specialised proteins produced by the immune system to target pollen.

The specific antibody the immune system creates in response to pollen is called immunoglobulin E (IgE). These antibodies specifically activate specialised immune cells called mast cells, which release histamine – the substance that causes all the pesky hay fever symptoms. Those symptoms can range from mild to debilitating and so can really affect the quality of life for lots of people.

Preventing hayfever symptoms

The most common hay fever treatment are antihistamines, which are available over the counter. These work by neutralising the effects of the histamine that is released by the mast cells.

While most people only take antihistamines as soon as symptoms start, it’s actually a good idea to begin using them as soon as pollen counts begin to increase – even before you have full-blown symptoms. You should also begin using them everyday, regardless of the pollen count or your symptoms.

The main reason for this is because while antihistamines can block the effects of the histamine being released, they cannot prevent its release. In other words, antihistamines only treat the symptoms and not the allergic reaction. As long as the exposure to pollen remains, your immune system is still driving the production of histamine.

But research shows that taking antihistamines before pollen exposure can decrease the expression of the histamine receptor. As histamine works by binding to this histamine receptor, blocking the receptor’s expression can effectively decrease hay fever symptoms.

While antihistamines are the most effective way of treating hay fever symptoms, steroid nasal sprays can also be very effective in minimising symptoms.

Steroids block inflammation. Given hay fever is an allergic response which drives inflammation, these sprays suppress that inflammation – thereby decreasing symptoms.

Using a steroid nasal spray daily for a few weeks before the season starts is a useful way to prepare. Research even shows that using a nasal spray before pollen exposure can reduce allergy symptoms.

Reducing symptoms

A key factor in how bad your hay fever gets is your exposure to pollen. While it’s almost impossible to avoid pollen when going outdoors during hay fever season, it’s possible to minimise your exposure. This can lessen your symptoms and make hay fever more manageable.

This involves making changes to your environment, such as installing pollen filters in your car and air filters in your home.

Washing bedding and soft furnishing more often can be effective too, as pollen can easily attach to these surfaces. You can also try using anti-allergy pillows and duvets. These use tightly-woven fabrics and often chemical treatments to create a physical barrier, preventing pollen from settling inside the pillow and causing nighttime allergic reactions.

Avoid opening windows on days when the pollen count is high to prevent pollen coming into your home. It may also be worthwhile to avoid bringing outside clothes into your bedroom to help minimise nighttime exposure to pollen.

Allergies can be worse at nighttime for several reasons – including the fact that daytime pollen has transferred to bedding from your skin and hair. Lying down also increases congestion and causes mucus to pool in the sinuses. Lastly, the body produces more histamine at night, worsening the symptoms.

When outdoors, wearing wraparound sunglasses may help prevent pollen from triggering symptoms. Tying your hair up when outdoors may also help prevent some pollen being tracked back into your home. It’s also worth avoiding areas with high pollen trees and plants when the pollen count is particularly high. Birch, oak and cedar trees are particularly high in pollen, as well as daisies and sunflowers.

Unfortunately, it’s impossible to completely avoid pollen during the dreaded hay fever season. But it is possible to get ahead of hay fever symptoms by starting treatment before the season begins.

Christine Loscher 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. Hay fever season is coming – here’s how to get ahead of symptoms – https://theconversation.com/hay-fever-season-is-coming-heres-how-to-get-ahead-of-symptoms-275478

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Taylor, Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University

Celebrity outfits and endorsements often dominate social media, but Elton John recently drew attention for a very different reason. The musician has been spotted wearing jewellery made from his own kneecaps.

After a double knee replacement in 2024, he asked his surgeon if he could keep his patellae, the bones at the front of the knee, and later worked with jeweller Theo Fennell to turn them into wearable pieces.

While jewellery made from kneecaps is unusual, it raises a broader question: what happens to tissue once it leaves the body, and why do some people want to keep it?

Elton is not alone in wanting to hold on to parts of the body. Many people keep baby teeth or their children’s first lost tooth as sentimental objects. Social media is also full of stories about people preserving removed tonsils, adenoids, an appendix, or a newborn’s umbilical stump. Some of these are biologically inert keepsakes. Others carry medical and safety considerations.

In most cases, tissue removed during surgery is handled very differently. It is usually sent to a laboratory for testing, known as pathology, to confirm a diagnosis or check for disease. After that, it must be disposed of safely as clinical waste because it can carry biological risks. It is now relatively uncommon for patients to keep surgically removed tissue.

Handling human tissue can pose risks, especially for professionals working in operating theatres or pathology labs with unfixed tissue. “Unfixed” means the tissue has not been treated with chemicals to preserve it and kill microbes. Healthcare staff who use needles or sharp instruments are particularly vulnerable to exposure to blood-borne viruses such as hepatitis or HIV. Depending on the source, other pathogens may also be present, for example respiratory microbes in lung tissue.

Some keepsakes fall somewhere between harmless and medically relevant. Parents sometimes keep the umbilical stump after a baby is born. This small piece of tissue dries up and falls off naturally, usually within the first couple of weeks. If it is not kept clean and dry, it can become infected with a condition called omphalitis, meaning inflammation and infection of the stump.

Placenta

The most debated example of keeping human tissue comes after childbirth. Following delivery of the baby, the placenta is also delivered. This temporary organ connects the developing foetus to the uterus and acts as an interface for exchange of oxygen, nutrients and waste products between mother and baby, while keeping their blood supplies separate to prevent immune rejection and blood incompatibility.

Some people choose not only to keep the placenta but to consume it, a practice known as placentophagy. The idea comes from the belief that because the placenta nourishes the foetus during pregnancy, it must contain nutrients that can help the mother recover after birth. During pregnancy, nutrients such as calcium are transferred to the developing baby, and mothers can lose close to 4% of their bone mineral density. However, most nutrients stored in the placenta have already been passed to the foetus before birth.

Claims about the benefits of placentophagy are not strongly supported by scientific evidence. The nutrients present in placental tissue can generally be obtained through a balanced meal. Research in animal models has shown some positive effects, and similar findings have been reported in those studies, but these results have not been reproduced in humans.

People consume the placenta in various ways. It may be blended raw into smoothies, cooked into foods such as lasagne, steeped in high-strength alcohol to create a tincture, or dried and made into capsules, which is the most common approach, known as encapsulation.

Health risks

But there are also potential health risks. The placenta contains elevated levels of oestrogen, and high concentrations of this hormone in the bloodstream can increase the risk of thromboembolism, a condition in which blood clots form and travel through the circulation.

The placenta also acts as a filter during pregnancy, limiting the transfer of certain substances to the baby. Studies show that some heavy metals and other ions can accumulate in placental tissue, meaning levels may be higher in the placenta than elsewhere in the body.

In 2017, the CDC reported a case in which a baby developed repeated infections with group B Streptococcus agalactiae, a bacterium commonly found in the gut or vagina. Investigators traced the source of the infection to the mother consuming placenta capsules contaminated with the same bacterium. The process used to produce capsules reduces bacterial levels but does not completely remove them in all cases. Eating the placenta raw carries even greater risks, including exposure to bacteria such as E.coli.

Many animals eat their placentas after giving birth, largely to remove evidence that could attract predators and to reclaim nutrients. For humans, those same nutrients are easily obtained from a normal diet, and the medical benefits remain uncertain. At present, more robust studies are needed to determine whether placentophagy offers any genuine health advantages.

Whether transformed into jewellery, kept in a memory box or blended into a smoothie, once tissue leaves the body it moves from the personal and sentimental into the medical and biological. The meanings people attach to it vary widely, but the scientific questions about safety, benefit and risk remain the same.

Adam Taylor 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. From kneecap necklaces to umbilical cord keepsakes: the risks of keeping and consuming human tissue – https://theconversation.com/from-kneecap-necklaces-to-umbilical-cord-keepsakes-the-risks-of-keeping-and-consuming-human-tissue-276470

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniele D’Alvia, Lecturer in Banking and Finance Law, Queen Mary University of London

When a conflict escalates, financial markets respond within minutes. That reaction is not just panic or speculation – it is a kind of collective judgement about what might happen next.

Tensions involving the US, Israel and Iran triggered a sharp jump in oil prices when Asian markets opened on Monday (rising by as much as 13% amid fears of supply disruption). Major Gulf indices fell steeply, and in some cases trading was suspended amid volatility.

At the same time, investors moved into so-called “safe-haven” assets. Gold prices rose, and demand increased for traditionally defensive currencies such as the US dollar and Swiss franc.

This may sound like distant noise or random financial moves. In reality though, it is one of the clearest signals we have about how serious investors think the situation with Iran could become.

Markets are forward-looking. They do not only react to what has happened – they try to price what they expect will happen. Here’s how to read the signals.

Oil: the first warning light

Oil is usually the first market to move during Middle East tensions. That is because the region plays a crucial role in the global supply of energy. A particular point of concern is the strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping route through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil exports pass.

When oil prices jump, it does not mean supply has already stopped. It means traders believe there is a higher risk that supply could be disrupted.

Think of it like insurance. If the risk of damage rises, the price of insurance goes up immediately – even if no damage has yet occurred. Oil markets work in a similar way. Prices reflect the probability of trouble.

Why does this matter? Because oil affects almost everything. Higher oil prices push up fuel costs. Fuel affects transport. Transport affects food prices and goods on supermarket shelves. If oil remains expensive for weeks or months, it can push inflation higher.

So when oil spikes, markets are signalling that they see real economic risk – not just political drama.

At present, the scale of the oil move suggests markets are seriously reassessing the probability of disruption. The crucial question is persistence. If prices stabilise quickly, investors may believe escalation will be contained. If they remain elevated, markets are signalling expectations of prolonged instability.

Bonds: investors looking for safety

The second place to look is the bond market. A bond is essentially a loan. When you buy a government bond, you are lending money to a government in exchange for interest. US government bonds (Treasuries) are widely seen as one of the safest investments in the world.

In times of uncertainty, investors often move their money into these safer assets. This is known as “flight to safety”. When many people buy bonds at once, bond prices go up and their yields (the interest rate that is paid) go down.

You don’t need to follow bond charts every day to understand the message. If investors are accepting lower returns just to keep their money safe, it tells us they are worried.

If oil prices are rising while investors are piling into safe government bonds, markets may be signalling two concerns at the same time: higher short-term prices and weaker economic growth ahead. That is a difficult combination for any economy. Bond markets, in other words, are measuring anxiety.

Stock markets: how long will this last?

Stock markets reflect confidence in companies and economic growth. When shares fall sharply, it often means investors expect profits to be squeezed or business conditions to worsen. But the key issue is duration.

If stock markets fall briefly and then stabilise, investors may believe the conflict will be contained. If losses spread and persist, it suggests markets expect a longer or more disruptive episode.

Markets are not predicting headlines. They are estimating how long uncertainty might last and how deeply it might affect trade, energy supplies and consumer confidence.

Modern financial markets are highly interconnected. A shock in one region can ripple quickly across continents because supply chains, investment funds and large companies operate globally. That is why even a regional conflict can affect pension funds and savings accounts elsewhere.

Equity markets are not judging politics. They are estimating economic consequences.

What this means for markets – and for the conflict

Taken together, oil, bonds and equities provide a temperature check of expectations. Right now, markets are clearly pricing higher geopolitical risk. The sharp initial oil move shows concern about supply. The shift towards safer assets signals caution. Equity volatility reflects uncertainty about the duration of the conflict.

However, markets are not yet behaving as though they expect a systemic global crisis. We are seeing repricing – not collapse. That distinction matters.

As a finance expert, I believe markets are acting as early warning systems. If escalation of the conflict threatens to cause sustained disruption to energy infrastructure or shipping routes, we would expect the oil price to stay elevated, continued safe-haven flows and broader equity declines.

That would tighten financial conditions globally because higher energy prices push up inflation, falling stock markets reduce household wealth and confidence, and increased demand for safe assets raises borrowing costs for business and governments. In other words, credit becomes more expensive, investment decisions are delayed and consumers become cautious. This could slow economic growth.

If, however, tensions stabilise or de-escalate, markets may reverse quickly. Financial systems adjust rapidly when perceptions of risk change.

The broader implication is that modern conflicts transmit economic effects almost instantly through markets. Even before physical supply chains are interrupted, expectations alone can influence inflation, investment and policy decisions.

Markets do not determine the course of a conflict. But they shape the economic environment in which political decisions are made. For now, they are signalling caution – not panic. Whether that caution turns into something more severe will depend less on today’s headlines and more on whether disruption proves temporary or structural. That is what investors are watching. And it is what we should be watching too.

Daniele D’Alvia 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 oil, stocks and bonds are telling us about the Iran conflict and how long it might last – https://theconversation.com/what-oil-stocks-and-bonds-are-telling-us-about-the-iran-conflict-and-how-long-it-might-last-277326

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sophie Bartlett, Research Associate in Administrative Data Research Wales, Cardiff University

Concerns about living in a “post-truth” society – where evidence struggles to compete with misinformation, ideology and emotion – are now familiar. From vaccine hesitancy to climate change denial, public debates increasingly hinge not on a lack of information, but on how people judge evidence, expertise and uncertainty.

These concerns are often framed as a problem of facts. But a deeper issue may be at play – whether people have the skills to weigh competing claims, understand uncertainty and decide what counts as good evidence. Our new research suggests that science education could play a far bigger role in shaping those skills than is usually recognised.

Many philosophers and educationalists have argued that education plays a central role in preparing citizens to navigate an uncertain world. Today, organisations such as Unesco, the UN body for education, science and culture, are grappling with how schools and universities can respond to rising misinformation and declining trust in expertise. Higher education institutions and academics are attempting to find practical solutions to this challenge. Public concern often focuses on people rejecting scientific conclusions outright.

But the deeper challenge is epistemic: difficulty judging what counts as good evidence, how confident we should be in claims and when disagreement is legitimate rather than conspiratorial.

Our findings suggest science education – even for students who go on to study non-science subjects – may be crucial in shaping these abilities.

Using linked administrative data from more than 8,000 pupils in the UK, we examined achievement in GCSE science at age 15. We then looked at how this related to outcomes in the six most popular post-16 subjects: maths, biology, history, chemistry, English literature and physics.

Some results were expected. Students who achieved the equivalent of an A or A* in GCSE science were significantly more likely to go on to gain strong grades in science A-levels. But what surprised us was how far this effect extended beyond science.

---

Read more:
Post-truth politics and why the antidote isn’t simply ‘fact-checking’ and truth

---

High-achieving GCSE science students were more likely to achieve higher grades in every one of the six subjects we studied, including humanities. Even more strikingly, GCSE science turned out to be a stronger predictor of later success in history and English literature than GCSE maths. It was also a stronger predictor of success in history than GCSE English language (or Welsh language in Wales).

That matters because GCSE English language and maths are routinely used as determinants for post-16 education. Science rarely is. For decades, maths and English have been treated as the foundations of academic progress and employability. Science, by contrast, has often been justified mainly in economic terms – as a way to produce future scientists and fuel innovation.

Our findings suggest something broader is going on.

What is science education really doing?

Science education appears to be doing more than teaching just subject knowledge. It seems to help develop transferable ways of thinking that support learning across disciplines.

Educational researchers have long argued that science classrooms cultivate skills such as evaluating evidence, reasoning about cause and effect, handling uncertainty and distinguishing claims from data. In a world shaped by science and technology, these abilities increasingly matter in almost every career, and in everyday civic life.

Success in science at age 15 seems to signal – or help build – forms of reasoning that support later achievement. These skills matter in subjects like history and English, where students must weigh sources, construct arguments and interpret complex information.

This fits with wider research showing that scientific reasoning is linked to better judgement of misinformation. It is also associated with a stronger grasp of risk and probability, and a more nuanced engagement with expert disagreement. In a post-truth context, these skills may be just as important as subject-specific knowledge.

Implications for a post-truth society

This has implications for how science is taught and defended. If science education really does foster transferable ways of reasoning, curricula that prioritise experimentation, argumentation and uncertainty may matter more.

So too does teaching the nature of scientific knowledge, rather than relying on rote learning. Reducing science to memorisation risks stripping away precisely the features that seem to deliver long-term benefits.

Our findings also raise broader questions. How explicitly are these forms of reasoning made visible to students? Are assessments capturing them? And could non-science subjects draw more directly on the epistemic practices that science helps to cultivate?

Science education may need to do more to articulate its connections to other disciplines. History, English and other subjects may benefit from making shared ways of thinking more explicit.

In an increasingly polarised, misinformation-rich public sphere, the value of science education should not be judged solely by how many future scientists it produces. Our research suggests its influence is wider and longer-lasting: helping young people develop tools for thinking that support learning and judgement across many areas of life.

If we are serious about addressing the challenges of a post-truth society, science classrooms may be one of our most important – and underappreciated – starting points.

Sophie Bartlett receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), grant reference: ES/W012227/1, and is part of Administrative Data Research (ADR) Wales.

Chris Taylor receives funding from ESRC (Grant number ES/W012227/1) and Welsh Government.

– ref. Why science GCSEs matter more than we think in a post-truth age – https://theconversation.com/why-science-gcses-matter-more-than-we-think-in-a-post-truth-age-276306

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katie Edwards, Commissioning Editor, Health + Medicine and Host of Strange Health podcast, The Conversation

Light therapy sounds wholesome. Clean. Almost pastoral. Sit in front of a lamp. Feel better.

In our latest episode of the Strange Health podcast, we discovered that it can also mean strapping on a flashing mask and watching your own brain generate kaleidoscopic hallucinations behind closed eyelids.

The spark for this episode was a stroboscopic light device called the Lumenate Nova, promoted on social media by celebrities including Jennifer Aniston and Rosamund Pike, who serves as the brand’s creative director and is also an investor. The device claims to use carefully timed pulses of light to guide users into altered, meditative states, described by the company as “sober tripping”.

I was sceptical but gave it a go. “Sober tripping” sounded like a level of experimentation I could live with.

After watching what looked like brightly coloured fireworks, I eventually felt as if I were surrounded by a mountainscape, basking in a warm ray of sunshine coming from the left side of my vision. I had to remind myself I was on my sofa in Doncaster at 7pm. There was no sun.

The visions quietened my usually chatterbox brain. For 15 minutes, that alone felt like relief.

So what is actually happening? Stroboscopic light delivers rhythmic pulses that pass through the eyelids and stimulate the retina. When those flashes align with rhythms the visual system naturally oscillates at, including alpha-range activity, signals in the visual cortex begin to synchronise with the pattern. The result can be surprisingly vivid: spirals, tunnels, lattices, shifting colours and, for some people, more complex scenes with recognisable shapes and places.

The brain is constantly predicting what it expects to see. It breaks visual input into edges, colour and movement, then rebuilds it into the seamless scene we experience. When rhythmic light disrupts those patterns, the brain tries to make sense of the signals. Sometimes that means geometry. Sometimes it feels like landscapes.

We spoke to David Schwartzman, a research fellow at the Sussex Centre for Consciousness Science at the University of Sussex, who has been studying these effects for more than a decade. He describes stroboscopic hallucinations as a controllable way to explore how the brain constructs visual experience. They offer a glimpse of the underlying machinery of perception rather than a treatment in themselves.

Interest in stroboscopic light is not new. In 1819, the Czech anatomist Jan Purkyně described geometric patterns seen when moving his fingers in front of a candle with eyes closed. In the 1960s, artists Brion Gysin and Ian Sommerville built the “Dreamachine”, a spinning cylinder designed to induce altered states without drugs.

More recently, a large public installation called Dreamachine toured the UK in 2022, allowing tens of thousands of people to lie inside a purpose-built structure and experience synchronised light and sound. Participants reported everything from gentle patterning to overwhelming geometric worlds.

But what about the health claims? The phrase “light therapy” now covers very different technologies. Some regulate sleep and mood. Others aim to alter perception itself. Bright light therapy is well established for seasonal affective disorder (SAD). Used correctly, typically in the morning at prescribed intensities, it can help regulate circadian rhythms and improve mood in some people. That is different from stroboscopic stimulation, which targets visual perception rather than sleep-wake cycles.

---

Read more:
How light can shift your mood and mental health

---

Research into strobe-based interventions for depression is ongoing. Early studies are exploring safety, tolerability and whether the immersive experience might influence mood in ways researchers are beginning to compare with psychedelic-assisted therapy. It is promising, but not yet a standard treatment.

There are also experimental trials using 40 hertz flickering light in Alzheimer’s disease, based on the idea that synchronising brain rhythms could influence disease processes. This approach remains in clinical testing and is not an established therapy.

There are risks. Flashing lights can trigger seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy, although only a small proportion of people with epilepsy are photosensitive. Even in people without epilepsy, intense exposure can cause discomfort, headaches or nausea. Dose, brightness and individual sensitivity matter. People with epilepsy or migraine disorders may be advised to avoid stroboscopic devices.

Light can be therapeutic. It can also overwhelm. From SAD lamps to UV treatment for psoriasis and neonatal jaundice, light is powerful biology, but it is not automatically benign.

Strange Health is hosted by Katie Edwards and Dan Baumgardt. The executive producer is Gemma Ware, with video and sound editing for this episode by Anouk Millet. Artwork by Alice Mason.

Listen to Strange Health via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript is available via the Apple Podcasts or Spotify apps.

David Schwartzman receives funding from the Medical Research Council (UKRI083) and was partly supported by a grant from the UK Government for his participation in the Dreamachine Programme, as part of Unboxed2022. Katie Edwards received a Lumenate Nova device as a PR sample for editorial use in this episode.

Dan Baumgardt 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. Can flashing light alter your mind? The science of stroboscopic stimulation – https://theconversation.com/can-flashing-light-alter-your-mind-the-science-of-stroboscopic-stimulation-276034

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Danielle Turton, Senior Lecturer in Sociolinguistics, Lancaster University

Imagine time-travelling to Manchester, England in the late 1700s. What do you think people would sound like?

That’s the challenge facing Amanda Seyfried in The Testament of Ann Lee: portraying a working-class Mancunian accent from three centuries ago.

When historical linguists reconstruct past speech, it is an interpretative process. It relies on written evidence, including spelling, poetic rhymes, criticisms in old pronouncing dictionaries about how people ought to speak, and dialect descriptions. From these fragments, we can piece together a historically informed reconstruction.

In the late 18th century, English certainly sounded different, but not unrecognisable. Manchester would have been variably rhotic at this time. This is the pronunciation of the strong “r” sound in words like “star” or “bird”. Rhoticity is a feature shared with present-day American English.

In terms of vowels, the northern pattern in which words like “good” and “blood” are exact rhymes was present then as it is today. Both of these features are present in Seyfried’s portrayal.

Another feature Seyfried exhibits, but which is no longer typical of 21st-century Manchester accents, is her lack of what linguists call diphthongs, or gliding vowels. You can hear this in words she says like “great” and “clothed” where she uses vowel sounds that viewers might recognise from traditionally Lancashire or Yorkshire speech. These sounds were entirely consistent with 18th-century Mancunian accents but not today’s.

Seyfried has said she based her accent on actor Maxine Peake’s – although Peake is from Bolton, and not Manchester proper, this is not a bad decision. Bolton has its own distinct accent, but smaller towns often retain older features for longer while urban centres tend to experience accent changes more quickly.

In that sense, Peake’s accent may reflect features that Manchester has since moved away from, making her a more suitable reference point than a present-day speaker from the city.

Historic accents on screen

Seyfried’s performance sits within a broadly plausible northern English frame. Viewers online are divided: some praise the accent, others find it distracting. The difficulty is that without recordings we cannot know exactly how a Manchester accent sounded in the 18th century. It is though, entirely possible that her pronunciation is closer to historical reality than modern ears expect.

To this end, dialect coaches on historical films face a dilemma: do they recreate the speech of the time as faithfully as possible and risk losing the audience, or use something more contemporary? How far back could we go and still understand English?

We would manage 18th-century English reasonably well. For instance, it’s easier to understand Robinson Crusoe in 1719 than the 1500s English in Shakespeare or even the late 1300s and early 1400s middle English in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. But recognisable does not mean identical, and reproducing it, accent and all, too strictly could alienate viewers.

Most historical films don’t try to recreate how people actually sounded in the past. In Hamnet, which is set in the 1580s, the characters speak in modern received pronunciation instead of the kind of English spoken in Shakespeare’s time.

Even in stories set closer to the 18th century, such as The Favourite, Olivia Coleman’s Queen Anne still sounds distinctly modern – arguably, even more so than her Queen Elizabeth II in The Crown. Actors playing Tudor courtiers, medieval knights and even Shakespeare himself are routinely given modern accents on screen. Audiences rarely question it – or even notice.

Sociolinguistic research has long shown that southern and “prestige” accents, like that of royalty or the upper classes, are often treated as neutral and timeless while regional varieties are more readily linked to place and class. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that when Manchester appears on screen – especially in a historical setting – audiences listen more closely.

Part of that scrutiny might stem from its rarity. Working-class accents are under-represented in major films, and are even less often heard in leading roles. When they do appear, they carry the weight of representation. That scrutiny is understandable. Accent carries belonging, and carelessness can feel dismissive.

Amanda Seyfried seems aware of this sensitivity, noting in interviews that she originally suggested Olivia Cooke, who is from Oldham in Greater Manchester, for the role of Ann Lee. That comment, I think, shows that she recognises something important: these accents signal place, history and belonging and they matter to people.

So how authentic is the accent in The Testament of Ann Lee? In the absence of recordings from that time, certainty is impossible. But perhaps the more interesting question is not whether Seyfried’s accent is perfect, but what it means to hear a northern voice carry a feature film. It shifts our assumptions about what the past sounded like, and about who we imagine at its centre.

Danielle Turton has received funding from The Leverhulme Trust.

– ref. Amanda Seyfried nails bits of the 1700s Manchester accent in The Testament of Ann Lee – a linguist explains how we know – https://theconversation.com/amanda-seyfried-nails-bits-of-the-1700s-manchester-accent-in-the-testament-of-ann-lee-a-linguist-explains-how-we-know-276917

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lee John Curley, Lecturer in Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University

Are juries really impartial? Or is it the beliefs and attitudes they bring to trial that leads them to vote guilty or not? These questions are particularly important when it comes to the influence that rape myths may have on juror and judicial decision-making in sexual offence trials.

Rape myths are widely held but misleading ideas about sexual violence: who commits it, who experiences it and what it’s supposed to look like. Common rape myths include beliefs about what “real rape” looks like (that people are only raped by strangers), or blaming the victim for their rape based on their behaviour or what they were wearing. In England and Wales, the government recently announced reforms to counter these myths in court.

Most research on rape myths has focused on cases where the complainant is female. Rightly so, as women and girls are disproportionately affected in rape and sexual assault crimes.

---

Read more:
How rape myths and unconscious biases prejudice the judicial system against women – and rape survivors in particular

---

However, men and boys are also victims of sexual offences. The Crime Survey for England and Wales reported in 2022 that 275,000 men experienced sexual assault in that one-year period alone. This is likely to be an underestimate, because men often don’t report these crimes for a variety of reasons.

This is why our new study explores how rape myths influence verdicts in male-on-male rape trials.

Previous research has suggested that rape myths relating to male survivors often blame victims, minimise the harm or exonerate the accused. One example is the belief that “real men” are able to stop unwanted sexual assaults from happening. Or jurors might believe that there would be some sign of physical resistance in “real” rape trials.

A key difference between rape myths about men and women relates to masculine archetypes and men’s perceived ability to “fight off” sexual advances. These attitudes can mean that jurors might not believe survivors who have alleged they have been raped, for example, if they had previously consented to sex with the same man.

We presented 463 mock jurors with a mock trial, in which one man accused another of rape. There were six versions of this experiment, involving men of different ethnicities, and both straight and gay men. The same evidence was presented in each of these versions, however, and the ethnicity or sexual orientation of the men involved did not appear to influence the jurors’ decision.

Jurors first completed the male rape myth acceptance scale, a tool developed by researchers to measure how strongly someone believes in male rape myths. They then evaluated the evidence presented in our mock trial and reached a verdict of guilty or not guilty.

Our findings suggested that those more likely to believe male rape myths were more likely to believe the accused, less likely to believe the complainant, and thus more likely to reach a not guilty verdict.

The opposite pattern was true for those with low belief in rape myths, with guilty verdicts being more likely. Essentially, male rape myths influenced how jurors constructed stories surrounding the evidence and ultimately influenced verdict preferences. These findings align with what other research has found in male-on-female rape trials.

Juror decisions and implications

We also asked jurors to tell us how they made their decisions. This qualitative data helped to explore the findings in more detail.

People who strongly believed common myths about male rape were much more likely to doubt the evidence. Jurors in this group had doubts about the reliability, clarity or sufficiency of the evidence presented in the mock trial.

They also frequently drew upon rape myths to explain their not guilty verdict decisions. One juror said: “He didn’t at any point say no or stop him touching his penis. Removed his own clothes, rolled over. There’s not enough evidence to prove guilt.”

In comparison, those who had low acceptance of male rape myths were more likely to perceive that the intoxication mentioned in the same trial was a clear barrier to consent. They rejected victim-blaming narratives. For instance, one mock juror said: “The complainant was too drunk to consent, drunk enough to cause sickness and need support in moving to his bedroom, if he can’t move around by himself he cannot consent to sex.”

Other recent research has found that male rape myths were frequently discussed by jurors in their deliberations. The justice system therefore clearly needs to use different tools to counter male rape myths – similar to what has been suggested to combat female rape myths.

These could be in the form of judicial instructions, educational videos or expert witnesses who can direct jurors away from the myths and nudge them towards the facts. Similar recommendations have been made by the UK government to counter rape myths in trials where the complainant is female.

Another solution could be more scientific juror selection. In the US, attorneys and judges use a process called voir dire to deselect biased jurors.

This process varies widely by length, whether questionnaires (such as scales that measure biases, like the rape myths scale) are allowed and who conducts it (judge only or attorneys and judge). Nevertheless, measures such as the male rape myths scale could be used to move those with high belief in rape myths from male-on-male rape trials, to other trial types where this bias is unlikely to influence decision-making (such as white collar crime).

Whatever the method, tackling rape myths is necessary to ensure justice for those who suffer sexual violence, regardless of their gender.

Lee John Curley receives funding from Leverhulme/British Academy.

Dominic Willmott received funding from The British Academy (SRG2223231748) to carry out the research project to which this article relates.

Kennath Widanaralalage 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 male rape myths stop some victims of sexual assault from getting justice – new study – https://theconversation.com/how-male-rape-myths-stop-some-victims-of-sexual-assault-from-getting-justice-new-study-274247

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kirk Chang, Professor of Management and Technology, University of East London

These days, gen Z appears to be pivoting towards skilled trades, perhaps driven by a desire for “AI-proof” job security. Many young workers now view blue-collar careers as more stable than office jobs in the face of rapid change.

It’s not just the youngest workers. A growing sense of unease about AI is reshaping how many people think about work. Within younger groups, this shift is showing up in hard numbers. In the UK, hiring of gen Z workers (those born in or after 1997) in construction and trade roles rose by 16.8% in the year to January 2026. The result is what some are calling the “toolbelt generation”.

But elsewhere in the workforce, many professionals are taking a pragmatic approach. Instead of competing with automation, they are learning how to work alongside it. Building fluency with AI tools is increasingly seen as a form of career insurance.

The goal is to move into roles designing, managing or directing AI systems. In that model, technology becomes a force multiplier (that is, it increases productivity), rather than a threat.

This shift is also driven by economics. AI-related skills command a clear premium in the jobs market. Beyond pay, there are other benefits. AI systems are particularly effective at handling repetitive, process-heavy tasks. When those functions are automated, employees can redirect their energy towards strategy, creative problem-solving and higher-value decision-making.

Many find that this shift not only improves productivity but also makes their work more engaging and meaningful.

Importantly, entering the AI space does not always require a computer science degree. Through online learning, bootcamps or just practical experimentation, workers can gain expertise in areas such as prompt engineering, workflow automation or AI application. The barrier to entry is lower than many assume, especially for those who already understand a specific industry.

Industry knowledge is, in fact, a major advantage. Organisations increasingly want people who can bridge domain expertise with technical capability. A healthcare professional who knows what patients need as well as understanding AI tools; a finance specialist who can apply machine learning to risk analysis; or a tradesperson who uses smart systems for efficiency can all bring unique value.

These hybrid profiles are becoming central to how companies integrate AI, creating interdisciplinary roles that did not exist a few years ago.

The flip side: risks and challenges

AI is creating opportunity, but it also brings risks and trade-offs. One of the most immediate challenges is the pace of change. Keeping skills current can feel like trying to hit a moving target. Over time, constantly doing more can lead to fatigue and burnout, particularly in highly competitive environments where staying relevant is tied to job security.

There is also an upfront cost. Transitioning into AI, especially into more technical or advanced positions, can require an investment of time and money before any financial return materialises.

And AI is said to be contributing to a hollowing out of traditional career ladders. Many entry-level roles, once considered stepping stones into industries such as finance or marketing are being automated or cut back. As a result, entry pathways into certain professions may narrow before new ones are established.

---

Read more:
AI could mark the end of young people learning on the job – with terrible results

---

Finally, working in AI often means grappling with complex ethical and safety questions. Workers must consider issues such as data bias, privacy, transparency and accountability. Decisions made during system design and deployment can have wide-reaching consequences. Navigating these responsibilities requires sound judgement and a clear understanding of these consequences.

Looking ahead

In many sectors, AI is unlikely to eliminate entire professions. Instead, it will reshape them. Tasks will be automated, workflows will evolve and job descriptions will shift. For most professionals, the practical response is not to abandon their field, but to integrate AI into it.

At the same time, technical fluency alone will not be enough. As automation takes over routine and rules-based work, human skills become more important. Critical thinking, judgement, empathy, communication and complex problem-solving remain difficult to replicate with algorithms. The more advanced the technology becomes, the more valuable distinctly human strengths appear to be.

There is also a widening gap across industries. AI is generating new, high-paying roles in areas such as engineering, data science and AI strategy. However, in positions where automation only partially replaces tasks, productivity may increase while wages do not. In some cases, partial automation can stifle pay or reduce opportunities for promotion.

Retraining and career pivoting in the AI age is becoming a mainstream response to structural change. AI is reshaping how work is done across sectors, while opening up new roles that are centred on oversight, integration, strategy and innovation. For many professionals, the question is not whether change is coming but how proactively they choose to respond.

The most resilient path forward is rarely about abandoning your field entirely. More often, it involves layering AI fluency on top of existing expertise. A finance professional who understands automation tools, for example, is better positioned than someone relying on legacy skills alone. In this sense, the objective of retraining is to move closer to the decision-making layer of work.

Ultimately, the AI era is not about a binary choice between optimism and fear. It is about positioning. Retraining and career pivoting are becoming central strategies for navigating this shift with intention rather than reacting after the fact.

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. Time to retrain? How to future-proof your career in the AI age – https://theconversation.com/time-to-retrain-how-to-future-proof-your-career-in-the-ai-age-276694

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dónal Mulligan, Lecturer, School of Communications, Dublin City University

For most of us, generative AI (GenAI) has moved from novelty to everyday infrastructure astonishingly fast. Many adults now use tools like chatbots at work or casually, and many children are already encountering them through homework “help”, entertainment, or social sharing.

Unsupervised use of generative AI can expose children and young people to confidently presented misinformation, manipulative “keep chatting” dynamics, and inappropriate or emotionally risky content. The tone and conversational dynamics of many chatbots can encourage secrecy and over-reliance, or mimic authority without real understanding or duty of care. In school contexts, GenAI can quietly undermine learning, turning homework and writing into shortcuts rather than skill-building.

I’ve helped create new school resources on GenAI, including guidance for parents. But the most effective safety measures still depend on adults setting boundaries, modelling critical thinking, and staying close enough to a child’s digital life to notice what’s changing in it. What follows are some practical ways to talk about, assess, and limit younger people’s GenAI use.

1. Begin with curiosity – not crackdowns

If you start by telling a child that they shouldn’t use GenAI, you may prompt secrecy about their current and further uses. A better opener could be a simple request to demonstrate to you the AI tools or uses they’re familiar with. Ask what they like about it, what it helps with, and what they’d never use it for. The initial aim should be to normalise discussing AI, though not to normalise unrestricted use.

From here it’s easier to acknowledge that these are powerful and intriguing tools, but not a person or an authority, and not without risks and necessary considerations.

2. Don’t treat stated age limits as optional

An awkward reality that parents may currently have missed is that many popular AI services set 13 as a minimum age (with parental permission under 18). OpenAI states that ChatGPT “is not meant for children under 13”, and still requires parental consent for ages 13 to 18. The AI chatbot ecosystem is inconsistent, however. Anthropic requires Claude users to be 18+, explicitly citing heightened risks for younger users. Google, meanwhile, allows supervised access to Gemini for under-13s via parent-enabled controls.

Your practical rule should be to treat age limits as a clear safety signal rather than a box-ticking exercise. If a service says “13+” or “18+”, that’s telling you something about risk, content exposure and the likelihood of harm from unsupervised use by young people.

3. Encourage fact-checking

Children (and indeed plenty of adults) can mistake confidence for correctness. When talking about GenAI with children, emphasise that AI chatbots can and regularly do “hallucinate”. They invent plausible-sounding details and mix fabrication with fact. Understanding that their speedy and well-stated responses come at a cost of large and small inaccuracies is key.

Encourage verifying anything important – news, health claims, law, school facts, statements that may be repeated as “true”.

4. Help them know when to stop

Large language models (LLMs) are designed to keep conversation flowing. They compliment, encourage, reassure and suggest what to do next. This may be helpful for brainstorming but it’s potentially dangerous for emotionally loaded topics where a young person is vulnerable, impressionable, or isolated.

Recent litigation around “companion” chatbots has alleged that vulnerable young users were pulled into harmful spirals, including self-harm risk and secrecy from parents. These are complex and unfolding cases, but they are serious enough to treat as a major warning sign about unsupervised, open-ended AI conversations for minors.

Parents and teachers should name a firm boundary: no chatbot is a counsellor, therapist, or trusted confidant. If a conversation becomes sexual, self-harm related, frightening, or intensely personal, the rule should be to stop and speak to a trusted adult.

5. Don’t feed the machine personal data

Young people often understand privacy better when it’s framed as something tangible. Some rules: don’t share a full name, address, school, phone number, or identifiable photos. Don’t upload private documents or screenshots. Don’t paste in other people’s personal information. If you wouldn’t post it on a public noticeboard, don’t paste it into a chatbot.

6. AI should support the work, not do the work

GenAI poses an educational risk that deserves far more attention: cognitive off-loading. This happens when the tool performs the thinking step – the learner may finish faster, but will learn less. Research is increasingly linking heavier AI reliance with reduced critical thinking and lower cognitive effort, with off-loading and automation bias proposed as mechanisms. A practical way to explain this to young people is that “AI can help you learn, but it can also help you avoid learning”.

---

Read more:
How generative AI is really changing education – by outsourcing the production of knowledge to big tech

---

If you’re helping with homework, allow the use of GenAI for asking for an explanation in simpler terms, or requesting feedback on a draft. Don’t allow writing the essay, answering the homework questions directly, or producing a solution that the student can’t explain.

7. Make AI use visible and social

Where AI use is permitted, aim to reduce secrecy. Use AI in shared spaces at home. Set agreed times, not late-night private use. Coordinate with other adults: parents should share their concerns and approaches with other parents and with school staff.

We should treat Generative AI as we wish we’d treated social media much earlier – not as just another app, but as a behavioural technology that shapes attention, learning, confidence and relationships. Being AI aware is not about panic, but about adults building enough knowledge and confidence to guide children toward safe, age-appropriate, genuinely educational use, while regulation and curriculum development catch up.

Dónal Mulligan has received research funding from the EU’s Erasmus+ program. He is affiliated with Webwise, the Irish Internet Safety Awareness Centre, and with Media Literacy Ireland.

– ref. Seven tips for talking to children and young people about generative AI – https://theconversation.com/seven-tips-for-talking-to-children-and-young-people-about-generative-ai-275718