Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Qiqi Cheng, Quantitative Research Associate, School of Environment, Education and Development, University of Manchester

For years, the narrative surrounding teenagers’ use of digital technology has been one of alarm.

Time spent scrolling through TikTok or playing video games is widely seen to be driving the current crisis in youth mental health, fuelling rising rates of anxiety and depression.

But our recent study suggests that this simple story of cause and effect is not supported by the evidence.

After following more than 25,000 young people in Greater Manchester over three school years, we found little evidence that self-reported time spent on social media or frequent gaming causes mental health problems in early-to-mid adolescence. Instead, the relationship between digital technology use and teenagers’ wellbeing is far more nuanced than simple cause and effect.

While many previous studies have looked at a single snapshot in time, we used a longitudinal approach: observing the same young people over an extended period of time. We did this through the #BeeWell programme, which surveys young people annually. We tracked the same pupils across three annual waves, from year eight (when they were aged 12-13) to year nine (aged 13-14) to year ten (aged 14-15).

Another crucial point is that our analysis separated “between-person” effects from “within-person” effects. In other words, rather than just comparing the mental health of heavy users of social media or gaming to that of light users, we looked at whether a specific teenager’s mental health worsened after they started spending more time on social media (or gaming) than they usually did.

When we applied this rigorous method, the supposed link between digital technology use and later “internalising symptoms” – worry, low mood – largely vanished. For both boys and girls, an increase in time on social media or gaming frequency did not predict a later rise in symptoms.

How teens use social media

A common theory is that how we use social media matters more than how long we spend on it. Some argue that “active” use, like posting photos and chatting, is better than “passive” use, such as endless scrolling.

However, our sensitivity analyses found that even when we distinguished between these two types of online behaviour, the results remained the same. Neither active nor passive social media use was a significant driver of later mental health problems in our sample.

While we found no evidence of digital technology use causing later mental health issues, we did find some interesting differences in how boys and girls navigate their digital lives over time.

Girls who spent more time gaming in one year tended to spend less time on social media the following year. This suggests that for girls, gaming and social media may compete for the same limited free time.

Boys who reported higher levels of internalising symptoms (like low mood) in one year went on to reduce their gaming frequency the next. This suggests boys may lose interest in hobbies they previously enjoyed when their mental health declines. This is known as “anhedonia”.

The gap between headlines and research

If the evidence is so weak, why is the concern so strong? Part of the issue is a reliance on simple correlations. If you find that anxious or depressed teens use more social media, it is easy to assume the social media caused their difficulties.

But it is just as likely that the mental health problems came first, or that a third factor, such as school stress or family difficulties, is driving both. By using a large, diverse sample and controlling for factors like socio-economic background and special educational needs, our study provides a clearer view of the real-world impact (or lack thereof) of teenagers’ digital technology use.

Our findings do not mean that the digital world is without risks. Our study looked at year-on year trends, so it does not rule out the possibility of negative effects of social media or gaming in the shorter-term – such as immediately after use. Furthermore, issues like cyberbullying, sleep disruption or exposure to harmful content remain serious concerns.

However, our findings suggest that limiting the hours spent on consoles and apps or measures such as banning social media for under 16s is unlikely to have an effect on teenagers’ mental health in the long term. Policymakers should take note. Worse, such blanket bans may obscure the real risk factors by offering a simple solution to a complex problem.

Instead, it’s important to look at the broader context of a young person’s life, including the factors that may lead to both increased digital technology use and internalising symptoms. If a teenager is struggling, technology use is rarely the sole culprit. By moving away from the predominant “digital harm” narrative, we can focus on the real, complex factors that drive adolescent wellbeing.

Neil Humphrey receives funding from various bodies including The National Lottery Community Fund to conduct research on young people’s wellbeing

Qiqi Cheng 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. Evidence for link between digital technology use and teenage mental health problems is weak, our large study suggests – https://theconversation.com/evidence-for-link-between-digital-technology-use-and-teenage-mental-health-problems-is-weak-our-large-study-suggests-273386

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

AI is already doing a pretty good job at taking on some of the world’s workload. It has produced academic papers, enhanced space exploration and developed medical treatments.

And AI could soon be used in a managerial role too, making decisions that effect the working lives of human colleagues.

In some ways, this is an expected development. After all, AI is capable of learning, analysing, integrating and producing information.

It outperforms human intelligence in cognition (AI thinks more deeply and more quickly), reasoning (it has a wider scope of analysis and better accuracy) and coordination (it can handle highly complex tasks and process huge amounts of data).

As a result of these professional strengths, AI already has a pretty impressive CV. It has carried out repetitive manual work, intensive tasks on assembly lines and makes risk evaluations in space.

Meanwhile, research confirms that for many of us, AI is already a colleague of sorts, supporting businesses and human workers as they go about their daily tasks.

There are of course also jobs that have been lost, and people who feel justifiably threatened by AI’s increasing presence.

But for many organisations, AI has already proved invaluable. Recent research has shown that AI has increased the efficiency of marketing strategies, improved energy saving, and enhanced problem solving abilities – skills that take humans years of training and experience to match.

AI can also work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It does not complain and never goes on strike.

Meet the new boss?

But can AI replace human managers? Recent research I was involved in suggests that it can.

We took one of the most important tasks a business can engage in – recruiting the members of its workforce – and entrusted it to an AI system that my colleague and I had developed.

Generally speaking, recruitment is a managerial task, carried out by senior employees or outsourced to specialist firms. But for our project, AI handled the whole recruitment process independently and competently, from selecting candidates to drafting contracts. Using online interviews, questionnaires and filters, over 100 people were offered jobs at an electronic manufacturing plant in China.

Overall, we showed that AI is capable of implementing managerial tasks, at least in the field of recruitment. The success of our project suggests to us that AI could carry out managerial tasks on a much larger scale within the next ten years, supervising, leading and managing human employees.

We also think that AI working at managerial level will first emerge in the tech industry, where it has already been extensively used in operational roles.

People power

But other industries will surely follow. Other research has shown that AI offers businesses much in terms of better performance, financial gain and competitive advantage.

There are downsides too, of course. For all its benefits, AI poses an existential threat to many people’s jobs and careers. And human managers may not be keen to work with technology which impedes on their own decision making freedom – or their status.

Nor is AI yet skilled in the kind of relationship building, camaraderie or team spirit which can drive successful organisations.

So while the competition between AI and human colleagues will probably continue to grow in some sectors, people still have valuable strengths which make them attractive as line managers. First, they are are capable of vision, passion and hopes for the future, which provide momentum for social and economic progress and development. AI does not operate in this manner.

Second, AI always needs external – human – power to direct its tasks. For the moment, it cannot manage or reason without the involvement of people.

But some form of AI management is probably heading for many of our offices and work places. It could enhance these places, through pre-programmed reliability and efficiency.

But we need to be ready for it, and to be familiar with its characteristics and functions, rather than fearing or belittling its existence. The more we understand AI, the better we can learn to live with it, even if it is one day tasked with managing our own working lives.

Kirk Chang 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. AI could be your next line manager – https://theconversation.com/ai-could-be-your-next-line-manager-199937

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lewis Eves, Lecturer in the School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham

Tensions are growing in east Asia. The threat of a Chinese attack on Taiwan persists and, in recent weeks, North Korea has been testing its long-range missile capabilities. Russia’s reorientation of ties from Europe towards Asia is also accelerating and the America First rhetoric of Donald Trump is raising questions about the commitment of the US president to his country’s east Asian allies.

In navigating this context, Japan has returned to one of its recurring national debates: whether it should possess nuclear weapons. This debate was reignited in December following comments from an unnamed government security adviser that they believe Japan should have nuclear weapons given the severity of the surrounding security environment.

The Japanese government swiftly reaffirmed its commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. This response was probably, at least in part, intended to prevent relations with China from deteriorating further. China had already condemned any talk of a Japanese nuclear weapons programme, labelling Japan a “troublemaker” that was ignorant of its militaristic history.

Japan doesn’t seem likely to develop nuclear weapons in the short-term. However, the tensions that triggered this episode are not likely to end soon. This raises questions about the feasibility of a Japanese nuclear programme and the sustainability of Japan’s non-nuclear position.

Japan’s nuclear programme

The development of nuclear weapons is a lengthy process that requires years of research and infrastructure development. However, Japan’s extensive nuclear energy programme would shorten the timeline of nuclear weapons development significantly. This is because the infrastructure and expertise required to produce energy-grade nuclear material contributes to the development of more refined weapons-grade material.

In fact, Japan’s energy programme is already producing weapons-grade uranium and plutonium (the primary materials used in nuclear weapons) in its fuel production cycles. It is producing so much that, in 2014, Japan agreed to ship excess material to the US over fears that its storage sites would be targeted by terrorist groups seeking nuclear weapon capabilities.

So a Japanese nuclear arsenal is certainly feasible, with analysts in China predicting that such an arsenal could be developed within just three years.

However, there are several reasons why Japan is unlikely to develop its own nuclear weapons. First, developing nuclear weapons does not serve Japan’s immediate interests. Maintaining a nuclear weapons programme is expensive, with even the UK’s relatively small nuclear deterrent costing tens of billions of pounds annually. Given Japan’s vast public debt and its other economic challenges, this is money that could be put to use elsewhere.

Second, Japan’s current approach to foreign and security policy is well established and generally effective. This includes a so-called human security approach, through which Japan provides aid to address the underlying humanitarian causes of crises before they can escalate. The approach includes funding global healthcare initiatives to prevent the spread of diseases like malaria and tuberculosis, while fostering positive relations with developing countries.

Meanwhile, Japan has long managed relations with major international powers through economic and diplomatic dialogue and engagement. For its relationship with China, this takes the form of what some researchers have called “hot economics, cold politics”. This approach, which involves using intensive economic cooperation to avoid confrontation over contentious political issues, has been in place for decades and would almost certainly end should Japan pursue a nuclear weapon.

Third, there are constitutional barriers to a Japanese nuclear weapons programme. The “pacifist clause” of Japan’s constitution, Article 9, renounces aggression as a tool of foreign policy.

This does not strictly outlaw a defensive nuclear deterrent. But the act of launching a nuclear weapon, even in retaliation, is itself an offensive action incompatible with international law and human rights. Thus, even if Article 9 is interpreted in such a way that technically allows for nuclear weapons, their use would probably be restricted to a point of redundancy.

Japan’s parliament also passed a national policy known as the three non-nuclear principles in the 1970s. These commit Japan to not possessing, producing or permitting the presence of nuclear weapons in its territory. These principles would need to be overturned by parliament to allow for a nuclear weapons programme. However, this is unlikely given that recent polling indicates around 70% of the Japanese public oppose nuclear weapons.

And fourth, Japan’s nuclear programme would face international legal barriers. In 1970, Japan signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty alongside 190 other countries. In signing, Japan agreed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and work towards nuclear disarmament. Failing to comply with this treaty could result in significant economic and diplomatic sanctions that would probably offset any security gain from a weapons programme.

These factors make imminent Japanese nuclear weapons very unlikely. But the longer-term prospects are different. Japanese pacifism is slowly eroding, with repeated reinterpretations of Article 9 in recent years to permit more military autonomy.

In 2022, Japan adopted counterstrike capabilities into its defence policy, giving Japanese forces the capacity to launch offensive acts as part of a larger defensive strategy. This could, for example, involve launching missiles at an enemy port that is supplying a hostile fleet. These capabilities set a precedent that might eventually permit nuclear counterstrikes as part of a defensive deterrence programme.

This would still require legal change. However, young Japanese people are less opposed to nuclear weapons than their older counterparts. A 2025 survey found that around a third of Japanese teenagers support the development of a nuclear deterrent, coinciding with an increase in far-right and nationalistic views domestically. This opens the door for the eventual revocation of the non-nuclear principles.

Meanwhile, the Non-Proliferation Treaty is increasingly struggling to control the global spread of nuclear weapons, raising questions of whether it could deter states like Japan from pursuing nuclear weapons in the future. Should attitudes in Japan continue to shift and nuclear non-proliferation continue to struggle, a nuclear-armed Japan is a serious possibility over coming decades.

Lewis Eves 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 Japan build nuclear weapons? Why China’s concerns are unfounded, for now – https://theconversation.com/will-japan-build-nuclear-weapons-why-chinas-concerns-are-unfounded-for-now-272849

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

Brazil’s jailed former president Jair Bolsonaro was recently reported to have undergone three medical treatments to stop a bout of persistent hiccups. While hiccups are usually harmless and short-lived, his case highlights a condition that can, in rare circumstances, become medically significant.

Hiccups are one of the few bodily functions named after the sound they make. The sound is caused by a sudden, involuntary spasm of the diaphragm – a large, dome-shaped muscle that separates the chest from the abdomen and plays an essential role in breathing.

When the diaphragm contracts unexpectedly, air is drawn rapidly into the lungs. At the same time, the vocal cords snap shut, producing the characteristic “hic” sound.

Most people hiccup between two and 60 times per minute. Episodes typically last a few minutes, sometimes a few hours, before resolving on their own. They are usually only a minor irritation.

Doctors become more concerned when hiccups persist. Those lasting longer than 48 hours are classified as “persistent”. If they continue for more than a month, they are described as “intractable hiccups” – a rare and often debilitating condition.

The causes of common, short-term hiccups are usually straightforward. They can be triggered by an overfull stomach, alcoholic or fizzy drinks, very hot or very cold drinks, or emotional states such as anxiety and excitement or stress. These factors irritate or stimulate the nerves involved in the hiccup reflex, briefly disrupting the normal control of breathing.

Given how common hiccups are, it is not surprising that there are countless suggested cures. Some are supported by scientific evidence, while others rely on anecdote and personal experience.

Many of the techniques that appear to work best have one thing in common: they affect how the diaphragm functions. By altering breathing patterns or briefly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the blood, they may help reset the nerves that control the muscle.

Several small studies have examined structured breathing techniques. One approach, called “hiccup-relief using prolonged active inspiration” – slowly breathing in very deeply and holding it to stop diaphragm spasms – showed success in 21 patients. Another technique, called supra-supramaximal inspiration (breathing in even more after you already feel completely full of air) relieved hiccups in six people in a separate study.

A device based on similar principles, using controlled sucking and swallowing to regulate diaphragm activity, demonstrated a nearly 92% success rate in over 200 people.

There are also many commonly cited home remedies, although these often have little or no evidence to support them. They include breathing into a bag, drinking or gargling iced water, pulling the tongue, biting a lemon, eating peanut butter, applying pressure to the eyeballs, rectal massage (yes, really), performing the Valsalva manoeuvre (trying to breathe out against a closed nose and mouth), or attempting to induce a sudden fright. However, for most people, a brief change in breathing or swallowing is enough to interrupt the hiccup reflex.

One reason hiccups are difficult to study is that they usually resolve quickly. Short episodes are hard to capture in controlled research settings, which limits large-scale studies. As a result, most published studies focus on persistent and intractable cases.

Intractable hiccups are rare, affecting about one in 100,000 people. They occur far more often in men, who account for more than 90% of cases, particularly those over the age of 50. In these people, hiccups can be exhausting and distressing, interfering with eating, sleeping and breathing.

In Bolsonaro’s case, the cause of his latest episode has not been made clear. In June 2021, however, he attributed a previous bout of persistent hiccups to medication prescribed after dental surgery. Although the specific drugs were not disclosed, several medications are known to trigger prolonged hiccups.

Corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone and methylprednisolone, particularly at high doses, are well-recognised triggers.

Unlike food or fizzy drinks, which irritate nerves directly, these drugs affect chemical messengers within the nerve pathways that control the diaphragm. Hiccups have even been reported following corticosteroid injections into the knee or shoulder, which are often given to relieve pain from arthritis.

Benzodiazepines (drugs to treat anxiety and insomnia) can also cause hiccups, sometimes even at low doses. Studies of procedures involving benzodiazepine sedation, such as endoscopy, show that around one in five patients given midazolam develop hiccups, compared with about one in 20 who are not given the drug. The effect is again more common in men.

Some antipsychotic medications, including aripiprazole, have also been linked to hiccups, which often resolve when the drug is stopped. These medications influence the same neurotransmitter systems involved in the hiccup reflex.

Not always benign

Treatment for persistent hiccups usually takes one of two forms: medication or physical procedures. The drugs doctors most often prescribe are baclofen and metoclopramide, which have been tested in small studies comparing them against placebos (dummy pills). If the medication doesn’t work or causes too many side-effects, doctors may consider more invasive treatments.

Bolsonaro underwent a phrenic nerve block, a procedure that temporarily reduces or paralyses the function of the phrenic nerve, which controls the diaphragm. The effect can last for hours, days or up to a few weeks.

Because the phrenic nerve plays a critical role in breathing, the nerves on both sides of the body are rarely blocked at the same time. When used appropriately, the procedure is highly effective.

In more severe cases, or when doctors find out what’s causing the problem, permanent treatments might be needed. These could include destroying the nerve that’s causing the hiccups using heat or freezing, or surgically cutting and sealing off the nerve to stop the signals.

Persistent hiccups after stomach surgery are common. Since Bolsonaro was previously stabbed in the abdomen, this could be playing a role in his hiccup problem.

Damage to the area of the brain responsible for regulating hiccups can also play a role. One well-known example is Charles Osborne who holds the record for the longest continuous bout of hiccups – lasting 68 years from 1922 to 1990.

Research shows they can sometimes be an early symptom of cancers of the oesophagus, colon, kidneys, or conditions affecting the brainstem. Studies have also found that men diagnosed with persistent hiccups have higher rates of certain cancers in the following 12 months.

Thankfully for most people, hiccups remain a harmless inconvenience. However, hiccups that persist for several days without an obvious trigger should be assessed by a doctor.

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. Jair Bolsonaro had surgery for his hiccups. How to know when hiccups need medical intervention – https://theconversation.com/jair-bolsonaro-had-surgery-for-his-hiccups-how-to-know-when-hiccups-need-medical-intervention-272749

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Alexander, Affiliate Researcher, Political & International Studies, University of Glasgow

Diversity among students and researchers is a common goal across academia. This has been driven by a desire to increase opportunities for the historically marginalised in higher education – moving away from the straight, white and male personification of academia.

It also comes from a recognition that diversity brings innovation. It enhances the quality of research and teaching. It improves how higher education institutions engage with a diverse student body. Increased representation has affected how academia operates.

This is true in my discipline of political science. As we have worked to expand representation in the profession, we have broadened our understanding of the diversity of politics.

Growing representation in the field has increased our awareness of how different groups engage with politics. These are people often historically discounted in societies and ignored by political science: women, the LGBTQ+ community, people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Increased diversity gives academia invaluable general insight into the organisation of politics.

But disability in politics is in its infancy, as is the representation of the disabled scholar. Underrepresentation will affect any field. In political science, though, this is a particularly hazardous situation. Many of the issues disabled people encounter in society will result from political decision making.

In the UK, 25% of the population is considered to potentially have a disability. This not only includes physical or sensory impairment and neurodiversity, but long-term illness such as HIV, and mental health conditions such as depression.

Disabled students in higher education, from a position of underrepresentation, are also now an expanding group as the sector has made efforts to increase accessibility. Around 18% of UK students report having a disability. Yet only 7% of academics declare a disability in higher education.

Politics can deeply affect the lives of the disabled person. A change in policy may leave them unable to work or contribute to society, creating more barriers in life.

The unease in the disabled community about being represented in the assisted dying debate and the prospective fallout is one key example. Debate has also focused on what cars disabled people should be allowed to drive.

But because political science rarely recognises disability, politics and politicians are provided with little information on the impact of policy. We need more disabled political scientists to increase awareness, and this awareness will help better interrogate political issues around disability. More lived experiences of disability should provide insight, but also help create acknowledgement that the issues exist, from those who may never experience disability. But barriers exist.

Changing research

In my research, I argue that this lack of diversity has been entrenched by the marginalisation of disabled political scientists. We are not present or visible in research positions. At best, we are considered a novelty (as has been said to me on more than one occasion).

We – disabled scholars – are trying to highlight the disabling barriers that prevent career progress. These are usually hidden from non-disabled colleagues, who I believe are unaware of the issues, rather than looking to maintain exclusion.

One such barrier is hidden labour. A disabled scholar must make greater sacrifices to “make it” compared to non-disabled colleagues. This includes, for example, the energy required to access inaccessible teaching spaces, fieldwork travel and overcoming sensory overload or burnout. This effort must be put in to not have aspersions placed on a disabled scholar’s academic capacity. But there is often little or no acknowledgement from universities and other scholars of the barriers that mean this extra work is required.

We may be slowly approaching a turning point in the research of disability in politics. Several scholars are showing disability can provide understanding on how politics operates. Researchers are focusing on issues such as the political representation of the disabled person, and disability’s place within political theory. Others are exploring how disability affects support for political parties.

Research like this on disability is providing understanding of how far assumptions based on the non-disabled person are influential in politics. For instance, it is developing our knowledge about who gets to be represented in politics, and the barriers that exist for disabled people to actively engage in political participation.

There is a small but growing awareness that disability potentially offers a new perspective to frame our understanding of politics. Currently, this understanding is built on the image of the non-disabled person and what they believe politics should look like. The disabled person is an important part of society, but one that has often suffered from political decision making.

Once the disabled political scientist becomes a norm rather than exception, the importance of disability will be more undeniable. We will be better able to address and understand the impact politics has upon disabled people.

David Alexander 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 academic study of politics is failing disabled people – with real-world consequences – https://theconversation.com/the-academic-study-of-politics-is-failing-disabled-people-with-real-world-consequences-259222