Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle Bentley, Professor of International Relations, Royal Holloway University of London

Donald Trump will sit down with Vladimir Putin at a snap summit in Alaska on August 15 to discuss the war in Ukraine.

The American president has claimed it’s a victory his Russian counterpart is coming to the US at all. But hanging over the meeting is the fact Alaska was Russian until America acquired it in 1867, with the implicit message that territory does change hands from time to time.

The Alaska meeting is the latest in a series of US-backed attempts to end the war. Trump announced the summit on August 8 after Putin failed to meet a deadline that day to put a ceasefire in place or face US sanctions.

With Putin apparently set to ignore Trump’s threat, the hastily arranged summit was organised to allow the US president to look as if he is still able to wield diplomatic clout over Ukraine. But the danger is that, far from settling the conflict, this meeting could aggravate an already contentious situation.

Putin knows what he wants from the summit: to be awarded territory in Ukraine that his military has occupied, assurances that Ukraine will never join Nato, a demilitarised Ukraine with a Moscow-friendly government, and to end a war he never thought would be so difficult to win.

It’s less clear what Trump wants. The US president hasn’t clarified exactly what his plans are or even what his role is, saying that it isn’t up to him to “make a deal” between Russia and Ukraine.

Trump has described the summit as a “listening exercise”, words that have been seen by some analysts as a way of managing expectations. But Trump has also said there will be “severe consequences” if Putin doesn’t take action to stop the war.

This confusion opens up big questions as to what this summit is actually supposed to do in terms of reaching a meaningful solution.

Clearly, however, a lot hinges on territory. Ahead of Friday’s meeting, Trump has talked of “land-swapping”.

But what does this mean? The US president told a news conference on August 11 that he wants to return territory to Ukraine and “get back Ukraine’s oceanfront property”.

His public statements, which had always been either ambivalent or supportive of Putin, have been tougher on the Russian president of late – recently calling Putin a “disappointment” and describing Russian attacks on Ukraine as “disgusting”. Trump also upped the ante when he ordered two US nuclear-armed submarines to deploy closer to Russia earlier this month.

Given all this, it might seem on the surface as if Trump has moved closer to supporting Ukraine. But the reference to swapping land has caused alarm.

Ukraine has never laid claim to any Russian territory – it just wants its own back. It’s not clear Kyiv has anything to “swap” but land that was part of Ukraine before Russia invaded.

Russian land grab

The fact is that Putin isn’t talking about a land-swap – he’s talking about land acquisition. After some confusion when US envoy Steve Witkoff appeared to be mistaken about what Putin is asking for, it became clear that Putin is playing hardball.

The Russian president is calling for Ukraine’s withdrawal from its defensive positions in Donetsk and Luhansk in exchange for a ceasefire. These are regions which were partly occupied by Russia in 2014, more of which was taken after the 2022 invasion.

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenksy has ruled this option out, saying it would be both unacceptable and illegal under Ukraine’s constitution.

It isn’t clear that Trump will respect Ukraine’s position. Despite his more recent criticisms of Putin, Trump has a track record of public support for the Russian president.

And Trump has now given Putin a sense of credibility by simply agreeing to see him. A meeting with the US president carries a lot of weight. It’s a fact not lost on Zelensky, who called the summit “a personal victory” for Putin.

Who isn’t in the room?

Another problem is that Zelensky is not on the summit’s guest list. While Trump spoke to Zelenksky and EU leaders on Wednesday – and has floated the idea of future discussions between Ukraine and Russia – this is not the same as being in the room where it happens now.

Zelensky has made it clear that any negotiation which does not directly involve Ukraine will produce “dead decisions”.

Europe is similarly unimpressed at being sidelined from the meeting. The EU and Nato’s European member states have clear expectations about what Trump’s efforts should involve.

Nato secretary-general, Mark Rutte, believes the summit should be about “testing Putin” to see how serious the Russian president is when it comes to a plan for stopping the conflict.

While Rutte did not rule out some concessions on territory, he has also called on both the US and Russia to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and provide security guarantees to back any ceasefire agreement. If Trump doesn’t deliver on this, this will upset US relations with the rest of Nato.

Putin may have been hoping that the summit would put pressure on Ukraine to concede to his demands. He is likely hoping that if he can give the impression that he is willing to make a deal and it’s Ukraine that is the sticking point, the international community will be sympathetic towards him.

But Ukraine and European leaders clearly expect more and are unlikely to play along with that narrative.

So a lot will depend on how Trump now frames the discussion. If he repeats his past performances at summits with Putin and appears to back the Russian leader over his country’s closest allies, it is likely to cause a dangerous rift in the western alliance.

Michelle Bentley 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. Will Trump-Putin summit leave Ukraine and Europe out in the cold? – https://theconversation.com/will-trump-putin-summit-leave-ukraine-and-europe-out-in-the-cold-262974

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

What happens when a convicted felon and a man under indictment for alleged war crimes get together? What sounds like the opening line of a great joke, sadly, is probably the defining meeting of the second term of Donald Trump as US president.

As with any meetings involving Trump, expectations are low and anxieties are high in the run-up to the US-Russia summit in Alaska on August 15.

The White House, and Trump himself, have played down expectations of an imminent breakthrough towards peace in Ukraine, claiming that this would be “a feel-out meeting” to determine whether a ceasefire is possible. In typical hyperbole, the US president added that he was confident that it would probably only take him two minutes to know whether a deal is possible.

A subsequent threat that “there will be very severe consequences” if Putin does not agree to stop the fighting appears somewhat hollow now given that the reward for Putin ignoring Trump’s last deadline was an invitation to the US.

While framed almost solely as a meeting about the Russian war against Ukraine, it would be naive to assume that this is all that is on Trump’s agenda. There are two possible deals Trump could try to make: a deal with Putin on a ceasefire for Ukraine and a deal resetting relations between Russia and the US. Trump is interested in both, and he does not see them as mutually exclusive.

Trump has long talked about a ceasefire, and is probably genuinely keen for the fighting to stop. He probably also sees value in a ceasefire agreement in his quest for the Nobel peace prize.

There have been serious and justified misgivings in Ukraine and among Kyiv’s European allies that this two-way get-together will take place without any Ukrainian or European participation. This has prompted a flurry of diplomatic activity within Europe and across the Atlantic. Ukraine’s red lines have been clearly set out and fully backed by European leaders.

Neither will accept full legal recognition of the kinds of land swaps that both Trump and his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, have suggested. Security guarantees and Russian reparations for the damage done to Ukraine in three-and-a-half years of war are other likely stumbling blocs.

If there is a deal on a ceasefire, this will probably take the form of a broad and ambiguous framework that all sides would subsequently interpret differently. Part of such a framework would likely be a timeline and conditions for a Trump-Putin-Zelensky summit – most likely again without European participation.

This would be another gift for the Russian president as it would potentially put Zelensky in a position where both Trump and Putin would pressure him to accept an unfavourable deal or lose all US support.

By contrast, a US-Russia reset would be a more straightforward business deal – primarily with US economic interests in mind, but with significant geopolitical implications. There are few signs that Trump has given up on his agenda to “un-unite” Russia and China.

But, importantly, this is less about new American alliances and more about Trump’s ideas of re-ordering the world into American, Russian and Chinese spheres of influence. This would be easier to for the White House to achieve after a reset with the Kremlin.

Likely outcomes

As an outcome of the Alaska summit, such a reset of US-Russia relations is also most likely to materialise as a framework that simply identifies areas for future deals between the two sides. Any process to implement such a bilateral agreement between Moscow and Washington could begin immediately and run in parallel to any Ukraine negotiations.

This, too, would be a big bonus for Moscow. The Kremlin will be hoping that the further along things move on the US-Russia reset track, the more likely Trump will be to back Putin in negotiations with Ukraine.

Putin is clearly more interested in improving bilateral relations with the US than he is in a ceasefire. He has, for now, skilfully avoided Trump’s threats of sanctions while his forces have achieved what looks like an important breakthrough on the battlefield. This is not necessarily a game changer in the war overall, but it certainly strengthens Putin’s hand ahead of his meeting with Trump.

His troops’ battlefield success also decreases the urgency with which the Russian president is likely to approach negotiations – in the absence of Trump following through on his recent ultimatum threats, and with Ukraine and its European allies shut out of their meeting, Putin has every incentive to play for more time.

But the Russian president has to tread a careful line, bearing in mind that Trump got increasingly frustrated when, after seemingly productive phone calls between them, Putin then launched airstrikes a few hours later. Putin might offer a limited pause in Russia’s air campaign to avoid the civilian casualties that Trump has condemned.

But as long as his ground troops make further territorial gains, he is unlikely to stop – at least until he has full control of the four Ukrainian regions that the Kremlin has claimed as Russian in addition to Crimea.

Ukraine, by contrast, needs a ceasefire now and then a credible peace deal in which any necessary concessions are minimal and which comes with proper security guarantees. The European-led coalition of the willing appears to offer such guarantees now, and Trump might even support this.

But this is no guarantee that the US president will not flip again to take Putin’s side and push for an overly pro-Russian deal at a future three-way summit. During such a summit, even if it were just a scripted signing ceremony, there is every chance that Trump would go off-script or that Putin would manipulate him to do so.

This could then derail in a way similar to what happened during the White House row between Trump and Zelensky on February 28.

Kyiv’s European allies have made it clear that they will not abandon Ukraine. For all his deal-making bluster, a similar commitment is unlikely to be made by Trump.

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

– ref. Trump’s Alaska summit with Russia is shaping up to be the most important of his second presidency – https://theconversation.com/trumps-alaska-summit-with-russia-is-shaping-up-to-be-the-most-important-of-his-second-presidency-263087

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Luckhurst, Principal of South College, Durham University

Donald Trump meets Russian president Vladimir Putin in Alaska on September 15 for their first summit of Trump’s second term. Their topic of discussion will be the war in Ukraine. The pair may decide the fate of the country which Putin began to illegally occupy in 2014 and which Russian forces invaded in an outright war of aggression in February 2022.

Trump has hinted that he could agree, in a two-way summit without the involvement of the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, to the handing over of Ukrainian territory to Russia. If he does, this would bear close resemblance to an act of betrayal which took place in Munich on September 30 1938 and, ominously, is now understood as a key step on the road to the second world war.

The deal struck by the then British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, and his French counterpart, Édouard Daladier, with the German leader Adolf Hitler handed Hitler territory in Germany’s neighbour Czechoslovakia in return for what Chamberlain erroneously boasted would be “peace in our time”. Within months Nazi Germany would take control of much of the rest of Czechoslovakia and in less than a year the whole of Europe would be at war.

Similar to the Trump-Putin summit’s exclusion of Zelensky, the Czech leader Edvard Beneš was not included in the Munich summit. There had already been ample indication of Hitler’s bad faith in the spring and summer of 1938. Hitler had begun issue increasingly strident complaints about alleged Czech mistreatment of the German-speaking minority in Sudetenland, territory which had been handed to the newly formed state of Czecholoslovakia after the first world war, but which contained 3 million ethnic Germans.

By May Hitler was openly talking about destroying Czechoslovakia and on September 12 he made a speech vowing to “solve the question” once and for all. In response Chamberlain flew to see Hitler at Bad Godesberg, where they agreed that Germany would take control of all areas of the Sudetenland with a greater than 50% concentration of Germans.

The British prime minister persuaded the Czech president Edvard Beneš to accede to this demand, but within days Hitler had reneged, saying he would have the whole territory by October 1. This prompted Britain and France to accelerate their rearmament efforts. Chamberlain ordered the British fleet to put out to sea and on September 25 France ordered its army to mobilise.

The next step was choreographed with the help of Italy’s fascist dictator Benito Mussolini who – in the knowledge that Italy was not ready for a European war at that stage – set up another conference for September 29-30 in Munich. Britain and France agreed to travel to meet Hitler, who at that stage was aware that there was little appetite for war either among the German people or his own generals.

Beneš, meanwhile, was preparing his people to resist the German threat. Troops were sent to the borders between Sudetenland and Germany where Czechoslovakia had built considerable fortifications.

Chamberlain and Daladier duly met Hitler in Munich where over two days an agreement for the occupation of Sudetenland was thrashed out and a four page document signed by the three leaders and Mussolini. No Czech official was involved in either the negotiations or the signing of the agreement.

On hearing of the deal, Beneš said: “Munich is a betrayal that will be its own punishment,” adding: “Britain and France think they will save themselves from war and revolution at our expense, but they are wrong.” He stepped down a few days later.

Relief – but a disastrous outcome

At the time, the British press cheered Chamberlain as a hero and the agreement as a diplomatic triumph. It’s important to remember that at that stage, just 20 years after the catastrophic Great War had finished, there was very little appetite for another major conflict in Europe.

As The Times, which was in lockstep with the government on this issue, explained in an editorial “feelings were running so high” that the separation of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia “without a plebiscite seemed the only solution”. The newspapers editor at the time, Geoffrey Dawson, was a convinced supporter of Chamberlain so closely connected to the British Government that he has been described as “an ex officio member of the Cabinet”.

Hitler’s gamble had paid off. His troops occupied the Sudetenland on October 1 1938, securing for Germany the extensive border fortifications Czechoslovakia had prepared for its own defence. Within a matter of months Germany was ready to execute the second part of Hitler’s plan for Czechoslovakia.

On March 15, having used the same strategy of reporting the mistreatment of ethnic Germans in Bohemia and Moravia, Hitler summoned Emil Hácha, a quietly spoken lawyer who had been drafted in to replace Beneš after Munich.

Informing the new Czech leader that the order had already been given to the Luftwaffe to launch bombing raids over Prague and other big cities, the German leader forced Hácha to agree to accept an agreement whereby his country would become a German protectorate.

Chamberlain’s efforts to appease Hitler may have secured time for Britain to rearm and prepare for war. However, this had not been Chamberlain’s objective. He believed that by offering the Nazi regime what it wanted, he could secure an enduring peace. In fact, his concessions encouraged Hitler’s belief that threats of force could secure territorial gains.

The concern now must be that if Donald Trump accedes too readily to Putin’s territorial demands, Ukraine may suffer the same fate. Trump has already talked of “land swaps”.

If he agrees to allow Russia to annex what is left of the Donbas, it will mean that a vital area of territory where Ukraine’s armed forces have been holding Russia at bay since 2014 will be handed to Russia. This would leave the way clear for a resumption of hostilities at a later date, this time without the barriers of Ukraine’s fortified defensive line.

Ukraine – and Europe – will be hoping that Trump can hold his nerve when he meets Putin in Alaska on Friday.

Tim Luckhurst has received funding from News UK and Ireland Ltd. He is a member of the Free Speech Union and a member of the Editorial Board of The Conversation UK. His latest book, Reporting the Second World War – The Press and the People 1939-1945 is published by Bloomsbury Academic.

– ref. Alaska summit: why Donald Trump should heed the lessons of Munich 1938 when he meets Putin – https://theconversation.com/alaska-summit-why-donald-trump-should-heed-the-lessons-of-munich-1938-when-he-meets-putin-263125

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

Botox is the most common non-surgical procedure performed globally – with nearly 9 million procedures estimated to take place each year. In the UK alone, around 900,000 Botox injections are carried out each year.

But with a the growing popularity of this procedure comes an increase in risks and unwanted outcomes.

The UK Health Security Agency has recently reported a significant rise in clinically confirmed cases of botulism – a rare illness that can cause symptoms ranging from fatigue, headaches and dizziness to difficulty breathing. Between June 4 and August 6 2025, 41 cases have been confirmed in the UK. While these cases appear to be linked to the use of unlicensed products which are much more potent than Botox, even licensed products can sometimes come with risks.

Botox is short for botulinum toxin. It’s the most lethal toxin known to man. Even just a small fragment of botulinum toxin – weighing a fraction of the weight of a grain of salt – can be enough to kill a human. This is a key reason why only approved Botox products should be used, as their ingredients and strength have been carefully scrutinised.

Botox is produced by a bacterium called Clostridium Botulinum, which is usually found in water, soil and the intestinal tracts of animals. These bacteria can produce seven distinct types of toxin. Only types A and B are used clinically, though Botox type A is the one most commonly used in cosmetic procedures.

Botulinum toxin acts as a neurotoxin – meaning it impacts nerve function. It specifically inhibits the function of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine which is found in the neuromuscular junction between the nerve and muscle. A variety of nerves use this neurotransmitter – including those involved in key bodily functions such as digestion, breathing and movement.

Botox works cosmetically by inhibiting the function of the neuromuscular junction, which paralyses the nerve. This means the muscle doesn’t contract, limiting the overlying skin’s ability to wrinkle. This same function is also the reason Botox is used to treat eye twitches, chronic migraines, neck spasms, excess sweating, overactive bladder and crossed eyes.

It can take a few days after injection for the full effect of the Botox to occur. From here, the body begins breaking it down. After around three to four months its effects have fully diminished, which is why follow-up treatments are required.

Botox and botulism

As with any procedure, Botox comes with risks.

The most common side-effects people experience are some initial bruising and swelling and tenderness around then injection site.

But the more concerning side-effect is the risk of botulism. This is a rare complication that can cause symptoms ranging from mild to severe. It isn’t known how common botulism is in people who get Botox, but up to 25% of people who receive cosmetic Botox have complications. Botulism symptoms usually appear the day after receiving botox – but in some cases, they can manifest as many as 36 days later.

Mild symptoms include fatigue, headaches, dropping eyelids and visual disturbances. Moderate symptoms involve mild symptoms and difficulty swallowing.

In the worst case scenario, botulism can lead to anaphylactic shock and respiratory failure. Around 5-10% of untreated botulism cases result in death.

Thankfully, if identified early, treatments are available and effective. But it’s important to note that these treatments cannot reverse any damage that has already been done. They only work to halt further damage. Recovery from botulism can take months.

Botuslism can sometimes be mistaken for myasthenia gravis or Guillain-Barre syndrome, two autoimmune conditions that have overlapping symptoms. This is why it’s important to tell your doctor if you’ve had Botox, as there’s no immediate test for the toxin and those tests that show its presence take several days to produce results.

Staying safe

A few key factors can increase your risk of developing botulism from Botox.

Improper administration increases the likelihood of Botox spreading away from the injection site. This increases the risk of experiencing side-effects – including botulism.

Exceeding the maximum dose is another factor that increases your risk of botulism. This can happen through basic calculation errors and injecting the wrong amount for the injection site. For instance, men require a higher dose than women due to their increased muscle mass. Not accounting for this could easily result in a dosing error.

Repeated Botox use can also lead to Botox resistance, where a patient has built antibodies against the toxin or metabolises the Botox very quickly. This means they wouldn’t get the required Botox effect. It may mean that a patient would request a higher dose – potentially above recommended administration levels – to get any effect.

This can be dangerous and also counterproductive as increasing amounts of Botox runs the risk of increasing antibody production and further reducing the effectiveness of Botox. It also increases the risk of botulism.

Unlicensed Botox products also come with the risk of botulism. The recent spike of botulism cases in the UK have been linked to two unlicensed products, Innonox and Toxpia. Both are illegal to supply and use in the UK because their safety hasn’t been assessed by regulatory bodies.

These products also work differently to Botox. For instance, Innonox is also a “ready-made solution”, which means it can be injected without having to be dissolved in saline. This could lead to an increased risk of dosing errors if a practitioner is not used to the product or switches between using licensed Botox products and unlicensed ones.

Using a reputable and qualified practitioner is the best way to avoid contracting botulism. They will know how to properly inject Botox, which dose is safe for you and will only use products that are approved for cosmetic use.

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. Botox: unlicensed injections are increasingly being linked to serious illness in the UK – https://theconversation.com/botox-unlicensed-injections-are-increasingly-being-linked-to-serious-illness-in-the-uk-262398

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katarzyna Kosmala, Chair in Culture Media and Visual Arts, University of the West of Scotland

Edinburgh is once again joyfully alive with creativity and originality as the UK’s largest arts event returns. Staged in the oak grove of the city’s Botanical Gardens, the opening night of the 2025 Edinburgh Art Festival presented a sensory explosion that set the tone for the entire run.

British artist Linder’s dazzling, genre-defying performance spectacle fused Holly Blakey’s visceral choreography, Maxwell Sterling’s haunting soundscapes and Ashish Gupta’s flamboyant fashion, showcasing an eerie synthesis of body and nature.

This year – the 21st edition – offers a rich celebration of memory, identity and imagination, and with 82 exhibitions across 45 venues, it’s the biggest yet. Here’s our pick of the best from a visual feast for lovers of contemporary art.

1. Linder: Danger Came Smiling

This exciting show is a retrospective spanning five decades of fearless, boundary-pushing art. From punk and feminist photomontages to surreal fashion interventions and video work, Linder dissects our cultural obsessions with feminism, fairytales, flora and the human form. A rich tapestry of provocation and enchantment, this is a show not to be missed.

Royal Botanic Garden, Arboretum Place until October 19 2025, free

2. Who Will Be Remembered Here

Lewis Hetherington and CJ Mahony present a powerful, poetic film connecting queer lives across Scottish heritage sites. Developed in collaboration with Historic Environment Scotland, this is a deeply moving multilingual tribute to silenced histories and a comment on the erasure of cultures and identities. Personal stories are performed with passion in English, Scots, Gaelic and BSL. The show features places imbued with personal meaning, such as the industrial ruins of Biggar gasworks and the 2000-year-old Machrie Moor stone circle on Arran.

EAF Pavilion, 45 Leith Street until August 24 2025, free

3. Drama 1882

The UK premiere of Egyptian artist Wael Shawky’s exhibition explores the Anglo-Egyptian war through film installation featuring puppetry, drawings and historical narrative. Visually stunning and politically resonant, Shawky narrates religious wars, the Crusades and events leading up to the British occupation of Egypt from an Arab perspective. The show embraces lesser known and contradictory accounts to represent the making of history from an alternative perspective.

Talbot Rice Gallery, South Bridge until September 28 2025, free

4. Fire on the Mountain, Light on the Hill

Buenos Aires-based artist Mercedes Azpilicueta’s monumental tapestry weaves stories of protest and political expression in a vibrant collage of archival and contemporary imagery. Referencing war, food economies, collective action and women-led rights movements, this is a powerful and insightful commentary on overlooked histories. August 22 marks Azpilicueta’s live performance exploring themes of the struggles and resistance of women – real and fictional – across time.

The Collective Gallery, City Observatory at Calton Hill until September 7 2025, free; live performance on Calton Hill, August 22, free

5. Humpty Dumpty

British artist Mike Nelson has appropriated the Fruitmarket’s Warehouse space to recreate a haunting labyrinth of a derelict housing estate in his latest show. Unable to put things back together again, the installations arise from two sets of photographs documenting the condemned Heygate council estate in London, and new infrastructure building plans in Mardin, a city in eastern Turkey, near the Syrian border. The work captures cities in flux, commenting on construction and destruction, global politics and people’s struggle against regeneration, gentrification and social cleansing.

Fruitmarket Gallery, 45 Market Street until October 5, 2025, free

6. Give Light And People Will Find The Way (Ella Baker)

Scottish-Pakistani artist Rabiya Choudhry joins Chloe Reith (The Common Guild) and Martha Burns (National Library of Scotland) in conversation to discuss her new installation. Drawing on the legacy of African-American civil rights activist Ella Baker, it merges her powerful and inspiring words with Andrew Carnegie’s flaming torch – a symbol of enlightenment and public access to knowledge.

The illuminated work, representing collective strength, resilience and the power of learning, finds its permanent home at Craigmillar Library, a civic space rooted in community. The unveiling coincides with Dear Library, a new exhibition celebrating the centenary of the National Library of Scotland, and reflecting the role of libraries as beacons of hope and empowerment.

Craigmillar Library, 101 Niddrie Mains Road; Dear Library in-conversation event with Rabiya Choudhry, National Library of Scotland, George IV Bridge, August 14, 5.30pm, free

7. Resistance

Curated by British artist and filmmaker Steve McQueen, this striking show explores how countercultures and acts of protest have shaped life across the UK, and the powerful role of photography in documenting and driving change. It features renowned photographers such as Paul Trevor, Fay Godwin, Vanley Burke, John Deakin and Tish Murtha alongside lesser-known names. Underrepresented and marginalised voices are highlighted in this compelling exploration of overlooked histories.

Modern Two, National Galleries of Scotland, 73 Belford Road until January 4 2026, £14 (£2-£12 concession)

8. The Edinburgh Seven Tapestry

This extraordinary piece of work designed by Scottish artist Christine Borland and created by the city’s Dovecot Studios, commemorates the first women to enrol at Edinburgh University to study medicine. In 1870, the Surgeons’ Hall riot saw student and public protesters attempting to block the seven women from sitting an anatomy exam. Although the riot proved unsuccessful, the women’s fight to qualify as doctors eventually led to the Medical Act of 1876, legally permitting women to practise medicine.

The tapestry was created using a combination of traditional and modern materials and techniques. Borland’s organic shapes are ingeniously based on cellular structure in motion, with magenta and cyan hues representing the dyes that were used in both textiles and the scientific staining of human cells in the 19th century.

Edinburgh Futures Institute, 1 Lauriston Place until December 31 2025, free

9. Ring of Truth

A rare fusion of art, music and ancient philosophy makes up this collaboration between artists, musicians and historians. The show explores cosmic harmony and mysticism inspired by the Music of the Spheres manuscripts – ancient Coptic compositions from 5th and 6th-century Egypt. It features the work of Nurah Farahat, Haroon Mirza, Jack Jelfs, Craig Coulthard, Luke Fowler, David Maclean, Julie Johnstone, Edward Summerton, Alan Grieve and William Voelkle.

Blackie House, 6 Wardrop’s Court until August 24, free

10. Let Me Show You Who I Am

Created to be shown on billboards across the city, Alice Rekab’s arresting work delves into themes of diaspora, migration, queer identity and mixed heritage. The artworks have been created through a dynamic series of workshops exploring Black and Irish legacies of community activism and creativity across the UK. The artist’s explorations of Irish, Sierra Leonean, and Syrian family histories create powerful visual narratives of belonging.

Across Edinburgh until August 24, free

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Katarzyna Kosmala 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. Edinburgh Festival: ten of the best art shows to see this summer – https://theconversation.com/edinburgh-festival-ten-of-the-best-art-shows-to-see-this-summer-262748

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Louise Smyth, Lecturer in Department of Literature Film and Theatre Studies, University of Essex

This article contains spoilers for The Materialists

The Materialists purports to be a romantic comedy with a cynical and pragmatic look at romantic relationships. Its protagonist, Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a professional matchmaker, insists that a successful partnering is all about pairing the right numbers: salary, assets, height, weight, age. The man should be tall, the woman should be young and slim; both need to be rich.

This is a world of traditional gender norms, so the film does not concern itself with queer relationships. That is beyond one gag when Lucy interviews a woman who wants to find a Republican lesbian.

As the film goes on, Lucy’s matchmaking philosophy is tested when she becomes acquainted with Harry (Pedro Pascal) – tall, slim, handsome, wealthy, single (what the matchmaking business in the film calls “a unicorn”). At the same time, she runs into her ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans), who, despite also being tall, slim and handsome, is poor and living in a squalid apartment with dysfunctional flatmates (all reasons they broke up the first time around). The film hinges on the question: what will Lucy choose, love or money?

As an expert in romantic comedies, I can tell you they have long been concerned with the marriage of romance and money, even if economics are tastefully relegated to the background.

Ground zero for the romance plot was Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, which set the template. Elizabeth Bennet fell in love with Mr Darcy – and it was a wonderful coincidence that he just so happened to be rich.

Since then, this plot has repeated in Pretty Woman (1990), Sex and the City (1998-2004), Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001), You’ve Got Mail (1998) and Crazy Rich Asians (2018), to name a few. In these romances, a key part of the fantasy is not only that the woman (for it is always a woman) is saved from abject singledom, but that she enters the upper echelons of society through her partner’s wealth.

The Materialists attempts to puncture this fantasy by foregrounding the role of money in relationships. A delicious scene occurs early on when Lucy is summoned to a bridal suite where her client is having cold feet about the man she is marrying. The suite looks expensive and the bride is beautiful.

Lucy asks the bride why, in her darkest moments, she wants to marry her fiancé. The bride sheepishly replies that it makes her sister jealous. Her fiancé is better looking, taller and richer than her sister’s husband. A flash in Lucy’s eyes suggests she can work with this. This is about being valued, Lucy reassures the bride, you want to be seen and to get what you deserve.

The stakes of this world are made clear: a good match is about perception and prestige and the emotional implications that come with it can be manipulated to justify these standards.

However, the burgeoning love triangle between Lucy, Harry and John confuses these insights. Director and writer Celine Song’s beautiful, tender and restrained debut, Past Lives (2023), also explored a love triangle. While the romantic entanglements of this film were nuanced, the emotional stakes were always clear eyed. This is less true in The Materialists.

Lucy insists that marrying someone wealthy is non-negotiable for her but then breaks up with Harry for no discernible reason. Just before the breakup scene, the film reveals a strange twist in the story. Harry got painful and invasive leg lengthening surgery, enabling him to reach the critical height of six foot. Lucy is insistent that this is not the reason she breaks up with Harry and the film seems to believe her, so the role of this storyline is unclear. Is it that, in this world, women (except for Lucy, perhaps) are as shallow as men?

Lucy then gets back together with John despite no clear indication of what he offers her emotionally or financially, especially as there has been no change in his circumstances. And this is to say nothing of a sexual assault storyline that is uncomfortably shoe-horned in, or the role of race and ethnicity in matchmaking.

Like queer sexuality, race is introduced as a joke by a white character who only wants to date other white people. Also, the role of Harry’s heritage (Pascal is Latino) was not mentioned as a potential problem for the wasps (white Anglo-Saxon protestants) who make up the majority of New York’s elite.

Ultimately, The Materialists suggests that people should stay in their lane. Lucy and Harry come from different worlds, while Lucy and John’s are very similar. As they admit to each other, as well as coming from modest backgrounds, they are both smokers, come from “shitty families” and support left-wing politics. The Pride and Prejudice plot may be a crass fantasy of social mobility, but The Materialists appears all the more conservative. If it is not clear whether Lucy and John marry for love nor money, what do they marry for?

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Sarah Louise Smyth 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 Materialists: a sadly conservative view on marriage – https://theconversation.com/the-materialists-a-sadly-conservative-view-on-marriage-263136

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

Scientists can get animals to do the strangest things. They’ve taught goldfish to drive cars, primates to perform calculations with Arabic numerals and giraffes to do statistical reasoning. But what’s the point?

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, biologist Scarlett Howard from Monash University in Australia – who has taught bees to tell the difference between odd and even numbers – defends the importance of these seemingly ecologically irrelevant experiments.

She argues that they can help us understand the secrets of animal cognition, and even potentially unlock future technological developments for humanity too.

Howard got hooked on working with bees when she realised it was possible to train individual bees using sugar water as a reward. “We work with a single bee for hours and hours at a time and she comes back and forth from the hive to the experimental area,” she says.

She began wondering what bees’ cognitive boundaries were, which led to experiments exploring how bees count and tell the difference between pictures with odd and even numbers of objects.

“ I wasn’t doing these experiments just flippantly,” she says. “There is a fun aspect to them, but I was also doing them because I thought they really had value to other areas of science.”

Howard argues that these kinds of experiments are important for the field of neuromorphic technology, computer systems inspired by animals. Learning about cognition from animals, and particularly how they do tasks very efficiently compared to their brain size, can help to develop “technology based on biological systems”, Howard says.

Read more:
Fish driving cars and chimps doing maths: what teaching animals ‘irrelevant’ skills reveals about our own minds

And she says that while these human-centric tasks may seem ecologically irrelevant to an animal’s species now, we may just not know yet. “Maybe one day we’ll find out that they choose flowers or remember flowers by looking at the petal number and remembering if it’s an even number, that’s a good flower,” she posits.

Listen to the conversation with Scarlett Howard on The Conversation Weekly podcast.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Katie Flood. Gemma Ware is the host and executive producer. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Scarlett Howard currently has funding from the Australian Research Council and the Hermon Slade Foundation.

– ref. From bees doing maths to fish driving cars: teaching animals irrelevant skills can help unlock the secrets of cognition – podcast – https://theconversation.com/from-bees-doing-maths-to-fish-driving-cars-teaching-animals-irrelevant-skills-can-help-unlock-the-secrets-of-cognition-podcast-262288

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steven David Pickering, Honorary Professor, International Relations, Brunel University of London

Seaweed is one of the few foods that can credibly claim to be good for both people and the planet. So why don’t westerners eat more of it?

It’s rich in vitamins, minerals, omega-3 fatty acids and fibre. It grows without fertilisers, pesticides or fresh water, and requires no farmland. Some species even capture carbon from the atmosphere and help counter ocean acidification.

From an environmental and nutritional standpoint, seaweed seems like an obvious choice for a sustainable diet. Yet in much of the west, it remains a fringe ingredient, appearing far more often wrapped around sushi in a restaurant than in a household’s weekly meals.

My team has been investigating this gap between seaweed’s potential and its place in everyday diets. Our aim was to find out why people in some countries eat seaweed regularly and why others do not.

Even actor Samuel L. Jackson has recently been promoting the virtues of seaweed snacks sourced from reefs beneath offshore windfarms. But seaweed snacks are far from mainstream, especially in countries like the UK.

Some of my computational social science students worked with the Europe-wide seaweed association North Sea Farmers to develop a campaign to encourage people in the Netherlands to eat more seaweed. They quickly realised that before trying to persuade people to eat more, it was important to understand the reasons they might not be eating it already.

This question was the focus of our new study surveying people living in both the UK (where seaweed is rarely eaten) and Japan (where it is a daily staple). By comparing the answers, we could separate cultural familiarity from other social and psychological factors that might influence consumption.

We didn’t just ask whether people eat seaweed. We explored how often they eat it, how easy they think it is to buy, how likely they are to eat it in future, and how healthy they believe it to be.

We also looked at their education, gender, age, political orientation, willingness to take risks, ethnic background in the UK, and levels of trust in institutions. These factors are often linked to openness to new foods and could help explain differences between countries.

Some results were not too surprising. Japanese respondents ate seaweed far more often than their British counterparts, found it easier to buy, and were more willing to eat it in the future. In both countries, people who were more willing to take risks, including trying unfamiliar foods, were more likely to eat seaweed.

But the really interesting differences lay in who those seaweed-eaters were. In the UK, consumption was higher among ethnic minorities and university graduates, and it tended to appeal more to those on the political left.

In Japan, it was more common among women and those on the political right, reflecting its place as a traditional food rather than an alternative one. Trust in government, scientists or social media played a smaller and less consistent role, and the patterns varied between countries.

In Japan, trust in government was linked with seeing seaweed as healthy, while in the UK there was no similar link. These contrasts probably reflect how seaweed is framed in each country’s media and cultural narratives.

The way forward

Seaweed is not simply another fashionable superfood. Its potential role in sustainable food systems is supported by strong evidence.

It has a low environmental footprint, can be cultivated at scale, and can improve the nutritional value of other foods when used as an ingredient. However, our research shows that making seaweed more available or promoting its health benefits will not automatically increase its use.

In the UK, familiarity is a major barrier. People may have access to seaweed products yet still avoid them if they do not feel part of their cultural food landscape. In Japan, where familiarity is high, the challenge lies in ensuring younger generations keep eating it as diets become more westernised.

For countries with little tradition of eating seaweed, our research suggests the way forward is to integrate it into familiar dishes, use clear labelling and recipe ideas, and present it as an attractive and approachable option.

Public figures, as Samuel L. Jackson has shown, can play a role in normalising it. In countries with a strong seaweed tradition, there is room for innovation to keep the ingredient relevant and appealing in changing diets.

Addressing global environmental challenges requires more than good science. It requires understanding people’s habits, values and motivations, and finding ways to work with them to create change.

If seaweed is to move from occasional novelty to a regular part of diets in countries where it is unfamiliar, the evidence suggests that cultural connection will be as important as nutritional value or environmental benefit.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

This research was led by Mana Iwasaki, Gadis Masita and Alexandra Roskam from the Computational Social Science programme at the University of Amsterdam. We are grateful to Alexia Nichifor, Clément Paitrault, Martin Ejnar Hansen and Yosuke Sunahara. It was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS, grant reference JPJSJRP 20211704) and the UK Research and Innovation’s Economic and Social Research Council (UKRI-ESRC, grant reference ES/W011913/1). More information can be found at https://www.TrustTracker.org.

– ref. Why are westerners so reluctant to eat seaweed? Our new study reveals the social and psychological reasons – https://theconversation.com/why-are-westerners-so-reluctant-to-eat-seaweed-our-new-study-reveals-the-social-and-psychological-reasons-263002