Category: English

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cathy Herbrand, Professor of Medical and Family Sociology, De Montfort University

Ten years after the UK became the first country to legalise mitochondrial donation, the first results from the use of these high-profile reproductive technologies – designed to prevent passing on genetic disorders – have finally been published.

So far, eight children have been born, all reportedly healthy, thanks to the long-term efforts of scientists and doctors in Newcastle, England. Should this be a cause for excitement, disappointment or concern? Perhaps, I would suggest, it could be a bit of all three.

The New England Journal of Medicine has published two papers on a groundbreaking fertility treatment that could prevent devastating inherited diseases. The technique, called mitochondrial donation, was used to help 22 women who carry faulty genes that would otherwise pass serious genetic disorders – such as Leigh syndrome – to their children. These disorders affect the body’s ability to produce energy at the cellular level and can cause severe disability or death in babies.

The technique, developed by the Newcastle team, involves creating an embryo using DNA from three people: nuclear DNA from the intended mother and father, and healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor egg. During the parliamentary debates leading up to The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations in 2015, there were concerns about the effectiveness of the procedure and its potential side effects.

The announcement that this technology has led to the birth of eight apparently healthy children therefore marks a major scientific achievement for the UK, which has been widely praised by numerous scientists and patient support groups. However, these results should not detract from some important questions they also raise.

First, why has it taken so long for any updates on the application of this technology, including its outcomes and its limitations, to be made public? Especially given the significant public financial investment made into its development.

In a country positioning itself as a leader in the governance and practice of reproductive and genomic medicine, transparency should be a central principle. Transparency not only supports the progress of other research teams but also keeps the public and patients well informed.

Second, what is the significance of these results? While eight babies were born using this technology, this figure contrasts starkly with the predicted number of 150 babies per year likely to be born using the technique.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the UK regulator in this area, has approved 32 applications since 2017 when the Newcastle team obtained its licence, but the technique was used with only 22 of them, resulting in eight babies. Does this constitute sufficiently robust data to prove the effectiveness of the technology and was it worth the considerable efforts and investments over almost two decades of campaigning, debate and research?

As I wrote when this law was passed, officials should have been more realistic about how many people this treatment could actually help. By overestimating the number of patients who might benefit, they risked giving false hope to families who wouldn’t be eligible for the procedure.

The safety question

Third, is it safe enough? In two of the eight cases, the babies showed higher levels of maternal mitochondrial DNA, meaning the risk of developing a mitochondrial disorder cannot be ruled out. This potential for a “reversal” – where the faulty mitochondria reassert themselves – was also highlighted in a recent study conducted in Greece involving patients who used the technique to treat infertility problems.

As a result, the technology is no longer framed by the Newcastle team as a way to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disorders, but rather to reduce the risk. But is the risk reduction enough to justify offering the technique to more patients? And what will the risk of reassertion mean for the children born through it and their parents, who may live with the continuing uncertainty that the condition could emerge later in life?

As some experts have suggested, it may be worth testing this technology on women who have fertility problems but don’t carry mitochondrial diseases. This would help doctors better understand the risks of the faulty mitochondria coming back, before using the technique only on women who could pass these serious genetic conditions to their children.

This leads to a fourth question. What has been the patient experience with this technology? It would be valuable to know how many people applied for mitochondrial donation, why some were not approved, and, among those 32 approved cases, why only 22 proceeded with treatment.

It also raises important questions about how patients who were either unable to access the technology, or for whom it was ultimately unsuccessful feel, particularly after investing significant time, effort and hope in the process. How do they come to terms with not having the healthy biological child they had been offered?

This is not to say we shouldn’t celebrate these births and what they represent for the UK in terms of scientific achievement. The birth of eight healthy children represents a genuine scientific breakthrough that families affected by mitochondrial diseases have waited decades to see. However, some important questions remain unanswered, and more evidence is needed and it should be communicated in a timely manner to make conclusions about the long-term use of the technology.

Breakthroughs come with responsibilities. If the UK wants to maintain its position as a leader in reproductive medicine, it must be more transparent about both the successes and limitations of this technology. The families still waiting to have the procedure – and those who may never receive it – deserve nothing less than complete honesty about what this treatment can and cannot deliver.

Cathy Herbrand receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. Babies born with DNA from three people hailed as breakthrough – but questions remain – https://theconversation.com/babies-born-with-dna-from-three-people-hailed-as-breakthrough-but-questions-remain-261385

Source: ForeignAffairs4

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

The majority of the world’s rechargeable batteries are now made using lithium-ion. Most rely on a combination of different rare earth metals such as cobalt or nickel for their electrodes. But around the world, teams of researchers are looking for alternative – and more sustainable – materials to build the batteries of the future.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to four scientists  who are testing a variety of potential battery materials about the promises they may offer.

When lithium-ion batteries emerged in the 1990s, they were a huge breakthrough, says Laurence Hardwick, a professor of electrochemistry at the University of Liverpool in the UK. He explains that lithium-ion batteries “ became commercialised at the same time as the mobile electronics industry really took off”. But their subsequent use in electric cars now presents “a challenge of scale”, given the use of rare earth minerals within their components.

Hardwick is director of the Stephenson Institute for Renewable Energy, named after the 19th-century engineer George Stephenson – builder of the world’s first inter-city rail link between Liverpool and Manchester, which passed close by to the University of Liverpool’s campus.

Hardwick’s work focuses on what other materials could be used either in conjunction with lithium, or on their own, to diversify battery manufacturing away from rare earth metals. Part of this includes research on solid-state batteries, which use ceramic plates rather than a solvents to conduct the ions that provide the charge. “ Solid-state batteries offer a lot of potential energy-gaining benefits and safety benefits,” he says.

Sodium-ion is also being touted as a potential alternative to lithium-ion batteries. Robert Armstrong, principal research fellow in chemistry at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, is part of a consortium of UK-based researchers working on questions around sodium-ion batteries, including what type of electrodes and electrolytes work best.

Like potassium-ion, which is also a potential battery candidate, sodium-ion is heavier than lithium-ion, but Armstrong says sodium is  fairly evenly abundant: “So you don’t have the supply issues that might affect lithium-ion, and you’re not like to see the same price volatility.”

Some Chinese manufacturers in China, such as BYD and CATL, are pushing ahead with sodium-ion batteries for cars, despite the fact they’re heavier than lithium-ion batteries. There’s also interest in sodium-based technology in countries in the Arabian Gulf that use desalination plants. “They’ve got all this sodium kicking around. Why not make use of it?” says Armstrong.

Batteries which biodegrade

Other researchers are looking at how to make batteries out of plant-based materials that are biodegradable. Bill Yen, a PhD candidate in electrical engineering at Stanford University, is part of a team who are developing Terracell, a type of battery that generates power using microbes in the soil.

Their inspiration was how to power environmental sensors in damp environments without leaving lots of electronic waste behind at the end of the battery’s life. Terracell won the energy category of the Prototypes for Humanity 2024 event in 2024 in Dubai, a  showcase for sustainable solutions to the world’s problems.

Also in Dubai was Ulugbek Asimov, a professor of mechanical and construction engineering at Northumbria University in the UK, who is developing BioPower Cells, a type of rechargeable battery made from waste products such as coffee which doesn’t contain any rare earth metals. “  And at the end of its lifespan, we drop it into boiling water and it will be turned into liquid ionic fertilizer,” Asimov said.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly to hear the conversations with these four scientists about their work and the batteries of the future.

---

Applications are now open for early career researchers to submit their projects for the Prototypes for Humanity 2025 awards and showcase in Dubai.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware with assistance from Mend Mariwany and Katie Flood. 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.

Bill Yen has received funding for his work on Terracell from National Science Foundation, the Agricultural and Food Research Initiative and support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,VMware Research, and 3M. Laurence Hardwick has received funding from the Faraday Institution and is a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Ulugbek Asimoz has received funding from the Northern Accelerator Proof of Concept to develop certain stages of the BioPower Cells project, which will be a spinout company from Northumbria University in the future. Robert Armstrong has received funding from the Faraday Institution and funding from EPSRC and Leverhulme Trust.

– ref. What will batteries of the future be made of? Four scientists discuss the options – podcast – https://theconversation.com/what-will-batteries-of-the-future-be-made-of-four-scientists-discuss-the-options-podcast-261294

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By William Barter, UKRI Future Leaders Fellow, University of Edinburgh

Why didn’t the universe annihilate itself moments after the big bang? A new finding at Cern on the French-Swiss border brings us closer to answering this fundamental question about why matter dominates over its opposite – antimatter.

Much of what we see in everyday life is made up of matter. But antimatter exists in much smaller quantities. Matter and antimatter are almost direct opposites. Matter particles have an antimatter counterpart that has the same mass, but the opposite electric charge. For example, the matter proton particle is partnered by the antimatter antiproton, while the matter electron is partnered by the antimatter positron.

However, the symmetry in behaviour between matter and antimatter is not perfect. In a paper published this week in Nature, the team working on an experiment at Cern, called LHCb, has reported that it has discovered differences in the rate at which matter particles called baryons decay relative to the rate of their antimatter counterparts. In particle physics, decay refers to the process where unstable subatomic particles transform into two or more lighter, more stable particles.

According to cosmological models, equal amounts of matter and antimatter were made in the big bang. If matter and antimatter particles come in contact, they annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. With this in mind, it’s a wonder that the universe doesn’t consist only of leftover energy from this annihilation process.

However, astronomical observations show that there is now a negligible amount of antimatter in the universe compared to the amount of matter. We therefore know that matter and antimatter must behave differently, such that the antimatter has disappeared while the matter has not.

Understanding what causes this difference in behaviour between matter and antimatter is a key unanswered question. While there are differences between matter and antimatter in our best theory of fundamental quantum physics, the standard model, these differences are far too small to explain where all the antimatter has gone.

So we know there must be additional fundamental particles that we haven’t found yet, or effects beyond those described in the standard model. These would give rise to large enough differences in the behaviour of matter and antimatter for our universe to exist in its current form.

Revealing new particles

Highly precise measurements of the differences between matter and antimatter are a key topic of research because they have the potential to be influenced by and reveal these new fundamental particles, helping us discover the physics that led to the universe we live in today.

Differences between matter and antimatter have previously been observed in the behaviour of another type of particle, mesons, which are made of a quark and an antiquark. There are also hints of differences in how the matter and antimatter versions of a further type of particle, the neutrino, behave as they travel.

The new measurement from LHCb has found differences between baryons and antibaryons, which are made of three quarks and three antiquarks respectively. Significantly, baryons make up most of the known matter in our universe, and this is the first time that we have observed differences between matter and antimatter in this group of particles.

The LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider is designed to make highly precise measurements of differences in the behaviour of matter and antimatter. The experiment is operated by an international collaboration of scientists, made up of over 1,800 people based in 24 countries. In order to achieve the new result, the LHCb team studied over 80,000 baryons (“lambda-b” baryons, which are made up of a beauty quark, an up quark and a down quark) and their antimatter counterparts.

Crucially, we found that these baryons decay to specific subatomic particles (a proton, a kaon and two pions) slightly more frequently – 5% more often – than the rate at which the same process happens with antiparticles. While small, this difference is statistically significant enough to be the first observation of differences in behaviour between baryon and antibaryon decays.

To date, all measurements of matter-antimatter differences have been consistent with the small level present in the standard model. While the new measurement from LHCb is also in line with this theory, it is a major step forward. We have now seen differences in the behaviour of matter and antimatter in the group of particles that dominate the known matter of the universe. It’s a potential step in the direction of understanding why that situation came to be after the big bang.

With the current and forthcoming data runs of LHCb we will be able to study these differences forensically, and, we hope, tease out any sign of new fundamental particles that might be present.

William Barter works for the University of Edinburgh. He receives funding from UKRI. He is a member of the LHCb collaboration at Cern.

– ref. New discovery at Cern could hint at why our universe is made up of matter and not antimatter – https://theconversation.com/new-discovery-at-cern-could-hint-at-why-our-universe-is-made-up-of-matter-and-not-antimatter-261274

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amelia Scott, Honorary Affiliate and Clinical Psychologist at the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, and Macquarie University Research Fellow, Macquarie University

If you spend any time in the wellness corners of TikTok or Instagram, you’ll see claims women need one to two hours more sleep than men.

But what does the research actually say? And how does this relate to what’s going on in real life?

As we’ll see, who gets to sleep, and for how long, is a complex mix of biology, psychology and societal expectations. It also depends on how you measure sleep.

What does the evidence say?

Researchers usually measure sleep in two ways:

• by asking people how much they sleep (known as self-reporting). But people are surprisingly inaccurate at estimating how much sleep they get

• using objective tools, such as research-grade, wearable sleep trackers or the gold-standard polysomnography, which records brain waves, breathing and movement while you sleep during a sleep study in a lab or clinic.

Looking at the objective data, well-conducted studies usually show women sleep about 20 minutes more than men.

One global study of nearly 70,000 people who wore wearable sleep trackers found a consistent, small difference between men and women across age groups. For example, the sleep difference between men and women aged 40–44 was about 23–29 minutes.

Another large study using polysomnography found women slept about 19 minutes longer than men. In this study, women also spent more time in deep sleep: about 23% of the night compared to about 14% for men. The study also found only men’s quality of sleep declined with age.

The key caveat to these findings is that our individual sleep needs vary considerably. Women may sleep slightly more on average, just as they are slightly shorter on average. But there is no one-size-fits-all sleep duration, just as there is no universal height.

Suggesting every woman needs 20 extra minutes (let alone two hours) misses the point. It’s the same as insisting all women should be shorter than all men.

Even though women tend to sleep a little longer and deeper, they consistently report poorer sleep quality. They’re also about 40% more likely to be diagnosed with insomnia.

This mismatch between lab findings and the real world is a well-known puzzle in sleep research, and there are many reasons for it.

For instance, many research studies don’t consider mental health problems, medications, alcohol use and hormonal fluctuations. This filters out the very factors that shape sleep in the real world.

This mismatch between the lab and the bedroom also reminds us sleep doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Women’s sleep is shaped by a complex mix of biological, psychological and social factors, and this complexity is hard to capture in individual studies.

Let’s start with biology

Sleep problems begin to diverge between the sexes around puberty. They spike again during pregnancy, after birth and during perimenopause.

Fluctuating levels of ovarian hormones, particularly oestrogen and progesterone, seem to explain some of these sex differences in sleep.

For example, many girls and women report poorer sleep during the premenstrual phase just before their periods, when oestrogen and progesterone begin to fall.

Perhaps the most well-documented hormonal influence on our sleep is the decline in oestrogen during perimenopause. This is linked to increased sleep disturbances, particularly waking at 3am and struggling to get back to sleep.

Some health conditions also play a part in women’s sleep health. Thyroid disorders and iron deficiency, for instance, are more common in women and are closely linked to fatigue and disrupted sleep.

How about psychology?

Women are at much higher risk of depression, anxiety and trauma-related disorders. These very often accompany sleep problems and fatigue. Cognitive patterns, such as worry and rumination, are also more common in women and known to affect sleep.

Women are also prescribed antidepressants more often than men, and these medications tend to affect sleep.

Society also plays a role

Caregiving and emotional labour still fall disproportionately on women. Government data released this year suggests Australian women perform an average nine more hours of unpaid care and work each week than men.

While many women manage to put enough time aside for sleep, their opportunities for daytime rest are often scarce. This puts a lot of pressure on sleep to deliver all the restoration women need.

In my work with patients, we often untangle the threads woven into their experience of fatigue. While poor sleep is the obvious culprit, fatigue can also signal something deeper, such as underlying health issues, emotional strain, or too-high expectations of themselves. Sleep is certainly part of the picture, but it’s rarely the whole story.

For instance, rates of iron deficiency (which we know is more common in women and linked to sleep problems) are also higher in the reproductive years. This is just as many women are raising children and grappling with the “juggle” and the “mental load”.

Women in perimenopause are often navigating full-time work, teenagers, ageing parents and 3am hot flashes. These women may have adequate or even high-quality sleep (according to objective measures), but that doesn’t mean they wake feeling restored.

Most existing research also ignores gender-diverse populations. This limits our understanding of how sleep is shaped not just by biology, but by things such as identity and social context.

So where does this leave us?

While women sleep longer and better in the lab, they face more barriers to feeling rested in everyday life.

So, do women need more sleep than men? On average, yes, a little. But more importantly, women need more support and opportunity to recharge and recover across the day, and at night.

Amelia Scott is a member of the psychology education subcommittee of the Australasian Sleep Association. She receives funding from Macquarie University.

– ref. Do women really need more sleep than men? A sleep psychologist explains – https://theconversation.com/do-women-really-need-more-sleep-than-men-a-sleep-psychologist-explains-259985

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Lord, Professor, Lever Chair of Urban Planning, University of Liverpool

Few issues ignite communities more fiercely than what to do with land. The prospect of releasing small portions of green belt land for housing developments, a windfarm proposal or plans for a new road can transform mild-mannered citizens into passionate advocates overnight.

This visceral connection between people and place perfectly illustrates the famous observation that “all politics is local”. In England, the principle that every citizen should be given the opportunity to “have their say” on planning matters is enshrined in law. Before any planning document is adopted, local authorities must give the public the chance to provide feedback.

The logic for this is based on a common-sense morality: before binding decisions are made about how an area might change, the local people who have to live with those decisions should be given the opportunity to endorse or reject that plan.

In practice this is a hugely cumbersome process. Local authorities have to make sense of thousands of comments. This prompted my colleagues and I at the University of Liverpool to begin thinking about how AI could be used to make this process more efficient.

Once a local authority publishes the relevant local planning document, every citizen, company, public, private or third sector organisation has the right to submit a written response. These may address the entire document or focus on a specific issue.

In all cases, the local authority is obliged to collate, comprehend and concisely summarise all public submissions. They will then decide whether the document requires amendments or if further evidence is needed to justify the proposals.

This creates an overwhelming burden for planning departments up and down the country. In high-development areas, submissions often number in the tens of thousands. And individual submissions range from a few sentences to over 100 pages.

Planners must read, absorb and synthesise all this information into a final report which will be used to make a decision. This report must fairly represent the aggregate views across all submissions.

Beyond the sheer volume of responses, human cognitive limitations and biases further complicate the process. Some submissions may be given greater emphasis than others. Recently read submissions are likely to have a greater influence on the reader than those reviewed earlier.

A digital solution

These challenges prompted us to explore alternatives. We partnered with Greater Cambridge Shared Planning – the planning authority for Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils – to develop an AI-powered solution. Our tool, Plan AI, would read and summarise public submissions to the planning process.

In 2025, my colleagues and I conducted a real-world experiment. Three live public consultation exercises were processed in parallel – once by planners and once by Plan AI.

It took a planning officer just over 60 hours in total to download and process 320 submissions. Eighteen hours of this time was used to summarise each submission – a task that took Plan AI only 16 minutes. In that time, the AI tool was also able to create comprehensive reports identifying key themes, referenced sources and geographic analysis of the submissions.

A subsequent qualitative assessment found there to be no discernible difference in the quality of the summaries produced by the human planning officer and those by Plan AI. In fact, the general overview document produced by Plan AI is a significant addition to what would normally be produced. It included a geographic analysis of the origins of submissions – crucial information for planners to understand which communities and demographic groups were participating in the consultation.

The future of planning

The UK government has set out a vision for local authorities to embrace AI for reducing administrative burden and improving the efficiency of government. For example, it recently rolled out an AI tool, developed with Google DeepMind, to digitise planning records.

The implications of experiments like these are far reaching. Planners can focus on their core expertise – assessing applications and supporting government priorities for housing, new towns and infrastructure renewal – rather than spending countless hours processing public comments.

AI can process vast amounts of text more consistently and comprehensively than humans. It can also identify connections between submissions that might otherwise be missed.

With the administrative burden drastically reduced, local authorities could potentially consult citizens more frequently across a wider range of planning issues, making planning even more democratic. Planners freed from paperwork could also dedicate more time to meaningful public engagement.

Of course, one danger with AI is that it could be used on the other side of the consultation, to generate a large volume of submissions in an attempt to over-amplify a particular point of view. However, AI tools could be used to defend against this.

PlanAI or similar programmes can generate an immediate summary of a comment submission, an ideal opportunity to insert a verification check that the submitter is indeed human. Putting the human back in the loop in this way reduces the potential for AI to be used to skew consultations.

By building the right tools and systems, we can create planning processes that are both more efficient and more responsive to citizen input – a win for democracy and effective governance alike.

PlanAI was developed under a paid contract with Greater Cambridge Shared Planning. At the time of publication, it is not sold or marketed to other governments or authorities, but may be so in the future. Alex Lord and the other researchers involved received funding from the UK government’s PropTech initiative and Greater Cambridge Shared Planning.

– ref. The government wants local authorities to embrace AI – here’s one way it could work in practice – https://theconversation.com/the-government-wants-local-authorities-to-embrace-ai-heres-one-way-it-could-work-in-practice-258449

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Manal Mohammed, Senior Lecturer, Medical Microbiology, University of Westminster

From your phone to your sponge, your toothbrush to your trolley handle, invisible armies of bacteria are lurking on the everyday objects you touch the most. Most of these microbes are harmless – some even helpful – but under the right conditions, a few can make you seriously ill.

But here’s the catch: some of the dirtiest items in your life are the ones you might least expect.

Here are some of the hidden bacteria magnets in your daily routine, and how simple hygiene tweaks can protect you from infection.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

Shopping trolley handles

Shopping trolleys are handled by dozens of people each day, yet they’re rarely sanitised. That makes the handles a prime spot for germs, particularly the kind that spread illness.

One study in the US found that over 70% of shopping carts were contaminated with coliform bacteria, a group that includes strains like E. coli, often linked to faecal contamination. Another study found Klebsiella pneumoniae, Citrobacter freundii and Pseudomonas species on trolleys.

Protect yourself: Always sanitise trolley handles before use, especially since you’ll probably be handling food, your phone or touching your face.

Kitchen sponges

That sponge by your sink? It could be one of the dirtiest items in your home. Sponges are porous, damp and often come into contact with food: ideal conditions for bacteria to thrive.

After just two weeks, a sponge can harbour millions of bacteria, including coliforms linked to faecal contamination, according to the NSF Household Germ Study and research on faecal coliforms.

Protect yourself: Disinfect your sponge weekly by microwaving it, soaking it in vinegar, or running it through the dishwasher. Replace it if it smells – even after cleaning. Use different sponges for different tasks (for example, one for dishes, another for cleaning up after raw meat).

Chopping boards

Chopping boards can trap bacteria in grooves left by knife cuts. Salmonella and E. coli can survive for hours on dry surfaces and pose a risk if boards aren’t cleaned properly.

Protect yourself: Use separate boards for raw meat and vegetables. Wash thoroughly with hot, soapy water, rinse well and dry completely. Replace boards that develop deep grooves.

Tea towels

Reusable kitchen towels quickly become germ magnets. You use them to dry hands, wipe surfaces and clean up spills – often without washing them often enough.

Research shows that E. coli and salmonella can live on cloth towels for hours.

Protect yourself: Use paper towels when possible, or separate cloth towels for different jobs. Wash towels regularly in hot water with bleach or disinfectant.

Mobile phones

Phones go everywhere with us – including bathrooms – and we touch them constantly. Their warmth and frequent handling make them ideal for bacterial contamination.

Research shows phones can carry harmful bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus.

Protect yourself: Avoid using your phone in bathrooms and wash your hands often. Clean it with a slightly damp microfibre cloth and mild soap. Avoid harsh chemicals or direct sprays.

Toothbrushes near toilets

Flushing a toilet releases a plume of microscopic droplets, which can land on nearby toothbrushes. A study found that toothbrushes stored in bathrooms can harbour E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and other microbes.

---

Read more:
Toothbrushes and showerheads covered in viruses ‘unlike anything we’ve seen before’ – new study

---

Protect yourself: Store your toothbrush as far from the toilet as possible. Rinse it after each use, let it air-dry upright and replace it every three months – or sooner if worn.

Bathmats

Cloth bathmats absorb water after every shower, creating a warm, damp environment where bacteria and fungi can thrive.

Protect yourself: Hang your bathmat to dry after each use and wash it weekly in hot water. For a more hygienic option, consider switching to a wooden mat or a bath stone: a mat made from diatomaceous earth, which dries quickly and reduces microbial growth by eliminating lingering moisture.

Pet towels and toys

Pet towels and toys stay damp and come into contact with saliva, fur, urine and outdoor bacteria. According to the US national public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pet toys can harbour E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Protect your pet (and yourself): Wash pet towels weekly with hot water and pet-safe detergent. Let toys air dry or use a dryer. Replace worn or damaged toys regularly.

Shared nail and beauty tools

Nail clippers, cuticle pushers and other grooming tools can spread harmful bacteria if they’re not properly cleaned. Contaminants may include Staphylococcus aureus – including MRSA, a strain resistant to antibiotics – Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the bacteria behind green nail syndrome, and Mycobacterium fortuitum, linked to skin infections from pedicures and footbaths.

Protect yourself: Bring your own tools to salons or ask how theirs are sterilised. Reputable salons will gladly explain their hygiene practices.

Airport security trays

Airport trays are handled by hundreds of people daily – and rarely cleaned. Research has found high levels of bacteria, including E. coli.

Protect yourself: After security, wash your hands or use sanitiser, especially before eating or touching your face.

Hotel TV remotes

Studies show hotel remote controls can be dirtier than toilet seats. They’re touched by many hands and rarely sanitised.

Common bacteria include E. coli, enterococcus and Staphylococcus aureus, including MRSA, according to research.

Protect yourself: Wipe the remote with antibacterial wipes when you arrive. Some travellers even put it in a plastic bag. Always wash your hands after using shared items.

Bacteria are everywhere, including on the items you use every day. You can’t avoid all germs, and most won’t make you sick. But with a few good habits, such as regular hand washing, cleaning and smart storage, you can help protect yourself and others.

It’s all in your hands.

Manal Mohammed 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 tea towels to TV remotes: eight everyday bacterial hotspots – and how to clean them – https://theconversation.com/from-tea-towels-to-tv-remotes-eight-everyday-bacterial-hotspots-and-how-to-clean-them-260784

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alan Shipman, Senior Lecturer in Economics, The Open University

Gloomy economic figures have heaped more pressure on the British government and its promise to improve growth. And if that wasn’t enough, there have also been some stark warnings about public finances and the country’s ability to service its debts.

All of this has led to a growing expectation that the UK chancellor Rachel Reeves will have to bring in some significant tax hikes later this year, or reduce government spending.

But both of these options could worsen the long-term economic outlook, by further constraining GDP growth. That was precisely the fate of governments that pursued an agenda of “austerity” – cuts in spending and higher taxes – to tackle the expanded public debt after the financial crisis of 2008.

It was a strategy that ultimately led to higher public debt. Put simply, when governments spend less, GDP tends to fall. And when GDP falls and a country is less productive, tax revenues go down too.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

To make things even more complicated for the chancellor, the UK government has also widened its debt risk by changing its fiscal rules to acknowledge extra financial responsibilities.

This adjustment gave the government more financial assets, including student loans and public pension holdings. But it also meant taking on more liabilities, including the pension schemes it would have to bail out if necessary.

In July 2025, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) identified several other sectors – including universities, housing associations and water companies – whose large debts could become government liabilities in the future.

A bigger balance sheet automatically means more public financial risk. And climate change further raises these risks, the OBR says, by forcing the government to spend more on dealing with environmental damage and eroding fossil-fuel taxes, which still raise around £24 billion for the Treasury.

The OBR is also concerned about the rising cost of pensions for an ageing population. In fact, the UK’s system is not particularly expensive, partly due to its reliance on private pensions (funded by employers and employees).

Yet this reliance brings a different kind of government cost. For these private sector schemes have attempted to insulate themselves against the strains of an ageing population, as more employees retire than join the workforce (and as retirees live longer).

Often this has involved shifting from “defined benefit” plans, which guarantee retirement income, to “defined contribution” plans, where payouts depend on how much members pay in and how well funds are invested.

But that shift has also made it harder for the government to borrow the money it needs for public spending.

Defined benefit funds, seeking a steady long-term return, used to be big buyers of UK government bonds (gilts) – the financial assets that the government sells to raise money. In contrast, defined contribution funds invest mainly in equities (company shares), which promise a higher return on investment that can grow pension pots faster.

UK industrial policy supports this shift from gilts to other assets. It wants pension funds to invest in innovation and infrastructure as a way of stimulating its often mentioned mission of economic growth.

The growth gamble

Yet the move by pensions towards equities is steadily deflating demand for new government bonds. This then forces the government to pay higher interest rates to attract enough buyers, often from overseas.

There is also pressure on the government to relax the “triple lock” on state pensions. This pledge – to raise the basic state pension by at least 2.5% every year, and maintained by all parties since 2011 – is costing around three times as much as was projected at launch, despite fewer pensioners escaping poverty since it was introduced.

Overall, inflation and an ageing population have lifted state spending on pensions to around 5% of GDP.

These pressures all strengthen the view that the government will need another tax-raising budget this year. How else will it pay for its plans for spending on healthcare, housing, infrastructure and defence?

Reeves sought to assure voters that £40 billion in tax hikes in October 2024 rises were enough to plug an inherited “black hole”. But she is already struggling to preserve those projections, after a politically painful retreat from welfare changes designed to save £5 billion.

Hopes that a faster-growing economy would narrow the deficit, by boosting tax receipts and reducing spending requirements, have not been fulfilled.

Yet calls for significant tax increases – which could dampen growth – may still be be resisted.

Under pressure, she may well consider a compromise like a “wealth tax” targeting the richest, that would also satisfy the Labour left. Yet the only way to really raise significant extra funds is to increase income tax, VAT or national insurance, which would be extremely risky politically.

But all economic policy comes with risk. And she may end up sticking with her position and putting her (taxpayers’) money on the hope that today’s deficit will eventually be narrowed by faster growth. Relying on more investment to solve economic problems depends on investors trusting the economic stability of the UK, which is a gamble. But it is a gamble the government may still be willing to take.

Alan Shipman has received funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust and the Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas at Austin.

– ref. Worries about the UK economy are justified, but can the government afford to gamble on raising taxes? – https://theconversation.com/worries-about-the-uk-economy-are-justified-but-can-the-government-afford-to-gamble-on-raising-taxes-260880

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Pybis, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Manchester Metropolitan University

UK chancellor Rachel Reeves would like Britons to invest more in stocks – particularly UK stocks – rather than keep their money in cash. She has even urged the UK finance industry to be less negative about investing and highlight the potential gains as well as the risks.

Stock ownership is important for governments for a variety of reasons. Boosting capital markets can encourage business expansion, job creation and long-term economic growth. It can also give people another source of income in later life, especially as long-term investing can offer greater returns than saving.

But in the UK, excluding workplace pensions, only 23% of people have invested in the stock market, compared to nearly two-thirds in the US. Survey results suggest that American consumers are generally more comfortable with financial risks.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

And it appears that a greater degree of risk translates into closer political engagement. During market shocks driven by US president Donald Trump’s tariff chaos, many Americans tracked headlines – and their portfolios – closely. This contrasts with the UK, where most people keep their savings in safer assets like cash savings accounts or premium bonds.

If Britons are more risk-averse, media coverage that tends to be noisier when markets fall than when they recover may be having an impact. While concerns regarding market volatility may be valid, they can overshadow the long-term benefits of investing.

One key opportunity that many British consumers have missed out on is the rise of low-cost, diversified exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which have made investing more accessible and affordable. An ETF allows investors to buy or sell baskets of shares on an exchange. For example, a FTSE100 ETF gives investors exposure to the UK’s top 100 companies without having to buy each one individually.

This is exactly the kind of long-term, low-cost investing that Reeves appears to be promoting. But should savers be worried about current market volatility – much of it driven by trade tensions and tariff uncertainty? One view, of course, is that volatility is simply part of investing.

But it could also be argued that big shifts within the space of a single month are often exaggerated. People are also likely to be put off by news headlines, which tend to exaggerate the swings in the market.

Examining daily excess returns in the US stock market from November 2024 to April 2025, I plotted cumulative returns (which show how an investment grows over time by adding up past returns) within each month. April 2025 stands out. Despite experiencing several sharp daily losses, the market rebounded swiftly in the days that followed.

This pattern isn’t new. Historically, markets have shown a remarkable ability to recover from short-term shocks. Yet many potential investors could be deterred by alarming headlines that, while factually accurate, often highlight single-day declines without broader context.

The reality is that the stock market is frequently a series of short-lived storms. These are volatile, yes, but often followed by calm and recovery.

Fear and caution

During market downturns, it’s common for people to try to understand why this time is worse or analyse if this crash is more serious than previous ones.

The fear these headlines generate could feed into barriers to long-term investing in the UK. And that’s one of the challenges the chancellor faces in encouraging more Britons to invest.

For those already invested in the stock market, short-term declines are part of the journey. They are risks that can be borne with the understanding that markets tend to recover over time.

My analysis of daily US stock market data since 1926 shows that after sharp daily drops, the market often rebounds quickly (see pie chart below). In fact, more than a quarter of recoveries occur within just a few days.

But this resilience is rarely the focus of media coverage. It’s far more common to see headlines reporting that the market is down than to see follow-ups highlighting how quickly it bounced back.

Research has shown that negative economic information is likely to have a greater impact on public attitudes. For example, a sharp drop in the stock market might dominate front pages, while a steady recovery over the following weeks barely gets a mention. The imbalance reinforces a sense of crisis, even when the broader picture is less bleak.

Unbalanced reporting can distort perceptions, discouraging potential investors who might otherwise benefit from long-term participation in the market. It appears that American perceptions of their finances are also affected by news coverage in a similar way.

Over the long term, the difference between stock market returns and the generally lower returns from government bonds is known as the “equity risk premium puzzle”. Economists have long debated why this gap is so large. Some observers argue it may narrow in the future. But many others, including the chancellor, believe that investing in the stock market remains a beneficial long-term strategy.

If more people are to benefit from long-term investing, it’s vital to tell the full story. That means not just highlighting when markets fall, but following up on how they recover afterwards.

Sam Pybis 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. Britons are less likely than Americans to invest in stocks – but they may not have the full picture – https://theconversation.com/britons-are-less-likely-than-americans-to-invest-in-stocks-but-they-may-not-have-the-full-picture-259485

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laudan Nooshin, Professor of Music, School of Communication and Creativity, City St George’s, University of London

One of the first things to greet visitors at the V&A’s new Design and Disability exhibition is a striking blue bench by artist Finnegan Shannon titled, Do You Want Us Here Or Not? This exhibit is a response to the often inadequate seating in museums, which not only acts as a barrier to accessibility for many people, but is more widely symptomatic of ableist approaches to museum and exhibition design.

In this case, the invitation to “Please sit here!” sets the tone for the whole exhibition, which also includes a large sensory map of the layout (located at wheelchair level), a tactile map, and QR codes that link to audio description for blind and partially sighted visitors, and also British Sign Language interpretation.

---

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.

---

Aiming to showcase the radical contributions of disabled, deaf and neurodivergent people to design history and contemporary culture from the 1940s until the present, the exhibition goes well beyond this, addressing an impressively wide range of issues around access, disability and exclusion. It also reveals how ableism operates across a range of exclusions, such as race, gender, class and more.

As the introductory notes point out: “Disabled people past and present have challenged and confronted the imbalance of design in society. This exhibition highlights disabled individuals at the heart of design history … It is both a celebration and a call to action.”

While the fight for disability justice goes back many decades – also documented in the exhibition – it’s only relatively recently that questions of access and equality have gone beyond the physical. These include a wide range of issues related to neuro-inclusion and sensory access, including calm spaces and sensory maps that indicate noisy areas.

My own interest in sound in museums has come partly out of research focusing on the role of acoustics in creating accessible spaces, and from my own experience of noise sensitivity conditions hyperacusis and misophonia. Inclusive sonic design seeks to address how sound operates as a factor of social inclusion and exclusion in places like museums.

The V&A exhibition comprises three sections: visibility, tools and living. Visibility focuses on design and art as fundamental tools of activism and includes work created as part of disability justice movements over many decades. This section is a stark reminder of the justice and rights that only come about through extensive struggles.

Tools highlight the extraordinary contribution to design innovation made by disabled people. Living explores stories of disabled people claiming space and imagining the worlds that they want to live in.

Sections two and three both advocate for the social model of disability in which people are rendered disabled by their environment, something that calls for design solutions (as opposed to the medical model in which people are required to navigate and find solutions to their “problem”).

The exhibition draws attention to a wide range of physical and sensory exclusions, both in the displays and the design of the space itself. The in-house design team includes staff with personal experience of disability who also worked closely with external partners living with disability.

There are plenty of exhibits that can be experienced through touch. For partially sighted visitors, there are strong visual contrasts in the wall colours and the edges of displays are lit up. And there are raised edgings on all exhibits for people using a cane – all of which help with navigation.

There are also quiet areas and plenty of seating. Some of these features are already being incorporated into gallery and exhibition design, and hopefully will soon become standard.

I particularly liked the way various issues intersect in the exhibition, in which a range of exclusions are set alongside one another: race, hearing impairment, youth exclusion and stammering, for example.

Other favourites included the B1 Blue Flame rattling football used for blind football, which visitors can pick up, feel, smell, shake and listen to. The Deaf Rave set and Woojer Vest are designed for deaf clubbers and performers and use vibrating tactile discs that amplify sound vibrations.

The beautiful blanket and pillow entitled Public S/Pacing by Helen Statford offers an invitation to rest, drawing attention to “crip time”, accepting “a different pace to non-disabled norms, challenging conventions of productivity, and resting in radical ways that would actually benefit society at large”.

The blanket highlights the failures of the design of public spaces to include disabled people, “challenging ableist assumptions with care and visibility”. The reverse of the blanket has a quotation from Rhiannon Armstrong’s Radical Act of Stopping (2016), embroidered by Poppy Nash.

The exhibition includes many examples of “disability gain” by which design aimed at a particular group of people unintentionally benefits others, too. An example is the smartphone touchscreen, based on technology developed by engineers Wayne Westerman and John Elias as an alternative to the standard keyboard, which Westerman was unable to use due to severe hand pain.

Initially marketed to people with hand disabilities, the technology was later sold to Apple where it revolutionised mobile phone technology.

The final panel of the exhibition is titled Label for Missing Objects, an imaginative and fitting way to mark the continuing story of designing a world that works for “every body and every mind”.

Design and Disability is a rich, thought-provoking and landmark exhibition. Kudos to the V&A, although its importance is so obvious, I wonder why it took this long to host a show dedicated to disabled artists and designers and the wider social impact of their work.

I very much hope there are plans for the exhibition to tour the UK and beyond, and to become a permanent gallery at the V&A, so that it can inform curation and design work in other museums.

Design and Disability at the V&A runs until February 15 2026.

Laudan Nooshin received funding from the AHRC for the project Place-making Through Sound: Designing for Inclusivity and Wellbeing (2023-24).

– ref. Design and Disability at the V&A is a rich, thought-provoking exhibition – https://theconversation.com/design-and-disability-at-the-vanda-is-a-rich-thought-provoking-exhibition-261135

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Patrick E. Shea, Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Global Governance, University of Glasgow

The US president, Donald Trump, recently announced that Russia had 50 days to end its war in Ukraine. Otherwise it would face comprehensive secondary sanctions targeting countries that continued trading with Moscow.

On July 15, when describing new measures that would impose 100% tariffs on any country buying Russian exports, Trump warned: “They are very biting. They are very significant. And they are going to be very bad for the countries involved.”

Secondary sanctions do not just target Russia directly, they threaten to cut off access to US markets for any country maintaining trade relationships with Moscow. The economic consequences would affect global supply chains, targeting major economies like China and India that have become Russia’s commercial lifelines.

Despite the dire threats, Moscow’s stock exchange increased by 2.7% immediately following Trump’s announcement. The value of the Russian rouble also strengthened. On a global scale, oil markets appear to have relaxed, suggesting traders see no imminent risks.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

This market reaction coincided with a nonplussed Moscow. While official statements noted that time was needed for Russia to “analyse what was said in Washington”, other statements suggested that the threats would have no effect. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, for example, declared on social media that “Russia didn’t care” about Trump’s threats.

The positive market reaction and lack of panic from Russian officials tell us more than simple scepticism about Trump’s willingness to follow through.

If investors doubted Trump’s credibility, we would expect market indifference, not enthusiasm. Instead, the reaction suggests that financial markets expected a stronger response from the US. As Artyom Nikolayev, an analyst from Invest Era, quipped: “Trump performed below market expectations.”

A reprieve, not a threat

Trump’s threat isn’t just non-credible – the positive market reaction in Russia suggests it is a gift for Moscow. The 50-day ultimatum is seen not as a deadline but as a reprieve, meaning nearly two months of guaranteed inaction from the US.

This will allow Russia more time to press its military advantages in Ukraine without facing new economic pressure. Fifty days is also a long time in American politics, where other crises will almost certainly arise to distract attention from the war.

More importantly, Trump’s threat actively undermines more serious sanctions efforts that were gaining momentum in the US Congress. A bipartisan bill has been advancing a far more severe sanctions package, proposing secondary tariffs of up to 500% and, crucially, severely limiting the president’s ability to waive them.

By launching his own initiative, Trump seized control of the policy agenda. Once the ultimatum was issued, US Senate majority leader John Thune announced that any vote on the tougher sanctions bill would be delayed until after the 50-day period. This effectively pauses a more credible threat facing the Kremlin.

This episode highlights a problem for US attempts to use economic statecraft in international relations. Three factors have combined to undermine the credibility of Trump’s threats.

First, there is Trump’s own track record. Financial markets have become so accustomed to the administration announcing severe tariffs only to delay, water down or abandon them that the jibe “Taco”, short for “Trump always chickens out”, has gained traction in financial circles.

This reputation for failing to stick to threats means that adversaries and markets alike have learned to price in a high probability of backing down.

---

Read more:
Investors are calling Trump a chicken – here’s why that matters

---

Second, the administration’s credibility is weakened by a lack of domestic political accountability. Research on democratic credibility in international relations emphasises how domestic constraints – what political scientists call “audience costs” – can paradoxically strengthen a country’s international commitments.

When leaders know they will face political punishment from voters or a legislature for backing down from a threat, their threats gain weight. Yet the general reluctance of Congress to constrain Trump undermines this logic. This signals to adversaries that threats can be made without consequence, eroding their effectiveness.

And third, effective economic coercion requires a robust diplomatic and bureaucratic apparatus to implement and enforce it. The systematic gutting of the State Department and the freezing of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programmes eliminate the diplomatic infrastructure necessary for sustained economic pressure.

Effective sanctions require careful coordination with allies, which the Trump administration has undermined. In addition, effective economic coercion requires planning and credible commitment to enforcement, all of which are impossible without a professional diplomatic corps.

Investors and foreign governments appear to be betting that this combination of presidential inconsistency, a lack of domestic accountability, and a weakened diplomatic apparatus makes any threat more political theatre than genuine economic coercion. The rally in Russian markets was a clear signal that American economic threats are becoming less feared.

Patrick E. Shea 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 Russia is not taking Trump’s threats seriously – https://theconversation.com/why-russia-is-not-taking-trumps-threats-seriously-261296

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kester Onor, Senior Research Fellow, Nigerian Institute of International Affairs

Nigeria’s former president, Muhammadu Buhari, who died in London on 13 July aged 82, was one of two former military heads of state who were later elected as civilian presidents. Buhari was the military head of state of Nigeria from 31 December 1983 to 27 August 1985 and president from 2015 to 2023.

The other Nigerian politician to have been in both roles is former president Olusegun Obasanjo . He was a military ruler between 1976 and 1979 and elected president between 1999 and 2007.

Buhari led Nigeria cumulatively for nearly a decade. His time as military head of state was marked with a war against corruption but he couldn’t do as much during his time as president under democratic rule.

As a political scientist who once served in the Nigerian Army, I believe that former president Buhari’s government’s war on terrorism was largely underwhelming, despite promises and early gains.

In his elected role, Buhari maintained a modest personal lifestyle and upheld electoral transitions. Nevertheless his presidency was marred by economic mismanagement, a failure to implement bold structural reforms, ethnic favouritism, and an unfulfilled promise of change.

He did leave tangible infrastructural footprints, a focus on agriculture, and foundational efforts in transparency and anti-corruption.

So his mark on Nigeria’s development trajectory was mixed.

Early years

Buhari was born on 17 December 1942, to Adamu and Zulaiha Buhari in Daura, Katsina State, north-west Nigeria. He was four years old when his father died. He attended Quranic school in Katsina. He was a Fulani, one of the major ethnic nationalities in Nigeria.

After completing his schooling, Buhari joined the army in 1961. He had military training in the UK, India and the United States as well as Nigeria.

In 1975 he was appointed military governor of North Eastern State (now Borno State), after being involved in ousting Yakubu Gowon in a coup that same year. He served as governor for a year.

Buhari later became federal commissioner for petroleum resources, overseeing Nigeria’s petroleum industry under Obasanjo. Obasanjo had become head of state in 1976 when Gowon’s successor, Murtala Muhammed, was assassinated in a failed coup that year.

In September 1979, he returned to regular army duties and commanded the 3rd Armoured division based in Jos, Plateau State, north central. Nigeria’s Second Republic commenced that year after the election of Shehu Shagari as president.

The coup that truncated the Shagari government on 31 December 1983 saw the emergence of Buhari as Nigeria’s head of state.

Buhari’s junta years

Buhari headed the military government for just under two years. He was ousted in another coup on 27 August 1985.

While at the helm he vowed that the government would not tolerate kick-backs, inflation of contracts and over-invoicing of imports. Nor would it condone forgery, fraud, embezzlement, misuse and abuse of office and illegal dealings in foreign exchange and smuggling.

Eighteen state governors were tried by military tribunals. Some of the accused received lengthy prison sentences, while others were acquitted or had their sentences commuted.

His government also enacted the notorious Decree 4 under which two journalists, Nduka Irabor and Dele Thompson, were jailed. The charges stemmed from three articles published on the reorganisation of Nigeria’s diplomatic service.

Buhari also instituted austerity measures and started a “War Against Indiscipline” which sought to promote positive values in the country. Authoritarian methods were sometimes used in its implementation. Soldiers forced Nigerians to queue, to be punctual and to obey traffic laws.

He also instituted restrictions on press and political freedoms. Labour unions were not spared either. Mass retrenchment of Nigerians in the public service was carried out with impunity.

While citizens initially welcomed some of these measures, growing discontent on the economic front made things tougher for the regime.

---

Read more:
Why Buhari won even though he had little to show for first term

---

Buhari, the democrat

Buhari’s dream to lead Nigeria again through the ballot box failed in 2003, 2007 and 2011. To his credit, he didn’t give up. An alliance of opposition parties succeeded in getting him elected in 2015.

The legacy he left is mixed.

Buhari’s government deepened national disunity.

His appointments, often skewed in favour of the northern region and his Fulani kinsmen, fuelled accusations of tribalism and marginalisation. His perceived affinity with Fulani herdsmen, despite widespread violence linked to some of them, further eroded public trust in his leadership.

His anti-corruption mantra largely did not succeed. While some high-profile recoveries were made, critics argue that his anti-corruption war was selective and heavily politicised.

Currently, his Central Bank governor is on trial for corruption charges.

The performance of the economy was also dismal under his tenure. Not all these problems could be laid at his feet. Nevertheless his inability to tackle the country’s underlying problems, such as insecurity, inflation and rising unemployment, all contributed. He presided over two recessions, rising unemployment, inflation, and a weakened naira.

He did, however, succeed on some fronts.

He tried with infrastructure. The Lagos-Ibadan expressway, a major road, was almost completed and he got the railways working again, completing the Abuja-Kaduna and Lagos-Ibadan lines. He also completed the Second Niger Bridge.

There was an airport revitalisation programme which led to improvements in Lagos, Abuja and Port Harcourt airports.

Buhari signed the Petroleum Industry Act after nearly 20 years’ delay. This is now attracting more investments into the oil industry.

He also initiated some social investment schemes like N-Power, N-Teach and a school feeding programme. They provided temporary jobs for some and gave some poor people more money in their pockets. N-Power is a youth empowerment programme designed to combat unemployment, improve social development and provide people with relevant skills.

These programmes later became mired in corruption which only became known after he left office.

There was also an Anchor Borrowers Scheme to make the country more sufficient in rice production. Again, it got enmeshed in corruption and some of its officials are currently standing trial.

In the fight against corruption, the Buhari administration made some progress through the Treasury Single Account, which improved financial transparency in public institutions. The Whistle Blower Policy also led to the recovery of looted funds.

---

Read more:
Why Buhari’s government is losing the anti-corruption war

---

Security failures

Buhari oversaw a deterioration of Nigeria’s security landscape. Banditry, farmer-herder clashes, kidnapping and separatist agitations escalated.

In 2015 Buhari campaigned on a promise to defeat Boko Haram and restore territorial integrity in the north-east. Initially, his administration made some progress. Boko Haram was driven out of several local government areas it once controlled, and major military operations such as Operation Lafiya Dole were launched to reclaim territory.

However, these initial successes were not sustained. Boko Haram splintered, giving rise to more brutal factions like the Islamic State West Africa Province. This group continued to launch deadly attacks.

Buhari’s counter-terrorism strategy was often reactive, lacking a clear long-term doctrine. The military was overstretched and under-equipped. Morale issues and allegations of corruption in the defence sector undermined operations.

Intelligence coordination remained poor, while civil-military relations suffered due to frequent human rights abuses by security forces. Community trust in the government’s ability to provide security dwindled.

Buhari’s second coming as Nigeria’s leader carried high expectations, but he under-delivered.

Kester Onor 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. Muhammadu Buhari: Nigeria’s military leader turned democratic president leaves a mixed legacy – https://theconversation.com/muhammadu-buhari-nigerias-military-leader-turned-democratic-president-leaves-a-mixed-legacy-261079

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Andrew Latham, Professor of Political Science, Macalester College

Many column inches have been dedicated to dissecting the “great power rivalry” currently playing out between China and the U.S.

But what makes a power “great” in the realm of international relations?

Unlike other states, great powers possess a capacity to shape not only their immediate surroundings but the global order itself – defining the rules, norms and structures that govern international politics. Historically, they have been seen as the architects of world systems, exercising influence far beyond their neighborhoods.

The notion of great powers came about to distinguish between the most and least powerful states. The concept gained currency after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and the Congress of Vienna in 1815 – events in Europe that helped establish the notion of sovereign states and the international laws governing them.

Whereas the great powers of the previous eras – for example, the Roman Empire – sought to expand their territory at almost every turn and relied on military power to do so, the modern great power utilizes a complex tapestry of diplomatic pressure, economic leverage and the assertions of international law. The order emerging out of Westphalia enshrined the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which allowed these powers to pursue a balance of power as codified by the Congress of Vienna based on negotiation as opposed to domination.

This transformation represented a momentous development in world politics: At least some portion of the legitimacy of a state’s control was now realized through its relationships and capacity to keep the peace, rather than resting solely on its ability to use force.

From great to ‘super’

Using their material capabilities – economic strength, military might and political influence – great powers have been able to project power across multiple regions and dictate the terms of international order.

In the 19th-century Concert of Europe, the great powers – Britain, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia – collectively managed European politics, balancing power to maintain stability. Their influence extended globally through imperial expansion, trade and the establishment of norms that reflected their priorities.

During the 20th century, the Cold War brought a stark distinction between great powers and other states. The U.S. and the Soviet Union, as the era’s two “superpowers,” dominated the international system, shaping it through a rivalry that encompassed military alliances, ideological competition and economic systems. Great powers in this context were not merely powerful states but the central actors defining the structure of global politics.

Toward a multipolar world

The post-Cold War period briefly ushered in a unipolar moment, with the U.S. as the sole great power capable of shaping the international system on a global scale.

This era was marked by the expansion of liberal internationalism, economic globalization and U.S.-led-and-constructed multilateralism.

However, the emergence of new centers of power, particularly China and to a lesser extent Russia, has brought the unipolar era to a close, ushering in a multipolar world where the distinctive nature of great powers is once again reshaped.

In this system, great powers are states with the material capabilities and strategic ambition to influence the global order as a whole.

And here they differ from regional powers, whose influence is largely confined to specific areas. Nations such as Turkey, India, Australia, Brazil and Japan are influential within their neighborhoods. But they lack the global reach of the U.S. or China to fundamentally alter the international system.

Instead, the roles of these regional powers is often defined by stabilizing their regions, addressing local challenges or acting as intermediaries in great power competition.

Challenging greatness

Yet the multipolar world presents unique challenges for today’s great powers. The diffusion of power means that no single great power can dominate the system as the U.S. did in the post-Cold War unipolar era.

Instead, today’s great powers must navigate complex dynamics, balancing competition with cooperation. For instance, the rivalry between Washington and Beijing is now a defining feature of global politics, spanning trade, technology, military strategy and ideological influence. Meanwhile, Russia’s efforts to maintain its great power status have resulted in more assertive, though regionally focused, actions that nonetheless have global implications.

Great powers must also contend with the constraints of interdependence. The interconnected nature of the global economy, the proliferation of advanced technologies and the rise of transnational challenges such as climate change and pandemics limit the ability of any one great power to unilaterally dictate outcomes. This reality forces great powers to prioritize their core interests while finding ways to manage global issues through cooperation, even amid intense competition.

As the world continues to adjust to multiple centers of power, the defining feature of great powers remains an unmatched capacity to project influence globally and define the parameters of the international order.

Whether through competition, cooperation or conflict, the actions of great powers will, I believe, continue to shape the trajectory of the global system, making their distinctiveness as central players in international relations more relevant than ever.

This article is part of a series explaining foreign policy terms commonly used but rarely explained.

Andrew Latham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What makes ‘great powers’ great? And how will they adapt to a multipolar world? – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-great-powers-great-and-how-will-they-adapt-to-a-multipolar-world-260969

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Felia Allum, Professor of Comparative Organised Crime and Corruption, University of Bath

It has been 33 years since anti-mafia prosecutor Paolo Borsellino was blown up by Cosa Nostra in front of his mother’s home in Palermo, Sicily. His death on July 19 1992 came 57 days after the murder of his colleague, Giovanni Falcone. This was the peak of Cosa Nostra’s attack on state representatives.

A vital document was lost that day – a red notebook believed to have been in Borsellino’s work bag. This loss has hampered attempts to understand how deep into the Italian state Cosa Nostra’s activities run.

The early 1990s were a turbulent time in Italy. The fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 broke the Italian party system and wiped out the traditional political parties, which had been based around the opposing forces of the Christian Democrats (supported by the US and the Vatican) and the Communist party.

The Christian Democrats, in power during the post-war period, had often protected Cosa Nostra. But losing power meant an inability to honour its “pact” with mafiosi. This led to the mafia attacking anyone who got in its way.

Falcone and Borsellino, as anti-mafia prosecutors, had got under the skin of Cosa Nostra. Their work zoned in on its mentality and activities. They were the driving force behind the 1986 “maxi trial” that saw hundreds of mafiosi prosecuted. This was the first time important mafia bosses were imprisoned. Falcone and Borsellino had brought a new understanding to the internal workings of the mafia, including its links with politics and money laundering operations.

The mafia was deploying terrorist tactics against state representatives and institutions in the early 1990s in what appears to have been an attempt to get the state to negotiate with it. Borsellino, it is believed, was investigating this when he was murdered.

The red notebook

Crucially, on the day Borsellino was murdered, his work bag, which contained his red notebook (“l’agenda rossa”) disappeared from the wreckage of his car.

He carried his red notebook around with him everywhere, making copious notes of his investigations and ideas. Had it been recovered, l’agenda rossa could have revealed the possible links between state representatives (including with the police and judiciary), businessmen and Cosa Nostra.

It could, in effect, have mapped out how and to what extent Cosa Nostra had infiltrated the Italian state and the nature of its relationships with the new political class, the business elite, freemasons and other covert actors.

A photograph of a police officer walking off with what looks very much like the bag that presumably contained the notebook has circulated ever since. But this is where the trail ends. The bag – minus the notebook – was later found in the office of the head of the flying squad, with no explanation as to how and why it got there.

The disappearance of the red notebook remains a persistent enigma – and one which continues to haunt contemporary Italy because of what it might suggest about the nation’s underworld and political class.

This photo could even suggest that the goal of killing Borsellino was not just to eliminate a zealous public prosecutor but to remove a pantheon of knowledge about organised crime and its infiltration into the public realm as part of a more orchestrated plan.

Then, in 1993, Cosa Nostra suddenly and inexplicably ceased its terrorist tactics against the state. It was as though a truce had been reached. Could this be the case?

Many have speculated that there was a secret dialogue and a trattativa – a state-mafia negotiation entered and a deal struck between state representatives and Cosa Nostra leaders to stop the violence. In exchange for an end to the violence, it was suggested that state representatives promised softer anti-mafia laws. It’s possible that the disappearance of Borsellino’s red notebook could have been part of the deal.

Interpreting history

The history of these dynamics between state and the mafia has since been written and re-written, dividing Italians and mafia scholars.

At the heart of all these disagreements lie two questions: was the notebook taken intentionally and why did Cosa Nostra stop its attacks on the state at the specific moment that it did?. The answer to these would essentially establish whether or not there was a negotiated peace between the mafia and the state.

In 2014, high-profile politicians, police officers and mafiosi were put on trial, accused of playing a role and enabling these negotiations. This was, in effect, the Italian state putting itself on trial.

Some legal experts and historians have argued that the theory of coordinated action by state representatives and mafiosi was always an absurd hypothesis. While there might have been some random informal contacts, they contest that there was never a formal pact. The end of Cosa Nostra‘s violence, they argue, was due to a combination of other factors, including greater enforcement of the law.

Others argue that there is evidence of a pact. These include first-hand accounts from former criminals. But of course it is hard to make these stories stick because all evidence of a relationship of this kind would, by definition, be covert and off the books. As with many trials and in particular, mafia trials, there are no facts, just interpretations of facts.

In 2018, some state representatives and mafiosi were found guilty. But in 2023, the Italian supreme court overturned the 2018 ruling and concluded that there was no pact and no state-mafia negotiation.

All involved were cleared for different reasons as the court attempted to draw a line under the intrigue by articulating a clear position. But with the mafia, answers are rarely that simple. And history is not only written in the courtroom.

Borsellino’s legacy is celebrated in Italy to this day – but the unresolved matter of his missing notebook haunts the country more profoundly. His bag – minus the notebook – has recently been put on show at the Italian senate to celebrate his life. The display is also a reminder of how much remains unresolved from that period.

Felia Allum 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. Paolo Borsellino: the murder of an anti-mafia prosecutor and the enduring mystery of his missing red notebook – https://theconversation.com/paolo-borsellino-the-murder-of-an-anti-mafia-prosecutor-and-the-enduring-mystery-of-his-missing-red-notebook-259101

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

Conflict in Syria has escalated with Israel launching bombing raids against its northern neighbour.

It follows months of fluctuating tensions in southern Syria between the Druze minority and forces aligned with the new government in Damascus. Clashes erupted in the last few days, prompting Israeli airstrikes in defence of the Druze by targeting government bases, tanks, and heavy weaponry.

Israel Minister Amichai Chikli has called the Syrian president Ahmed al-Sharaa –

a terrorist, a barbaric murderer who should be eliminated without delay.

Despite the incendiary language, a ceasefire has been reached, halting the fighting – for now.

Syrian forces have begun withdrawing heavy military equipment from the region, while Druze fighters have agreed to suspend armed resistance, allowing government troops to regain control of the main Druze city of Suwayda.

What do the Druze want?

The Druze are a small religious minority estimated at over one million people, primarily concentrated in the mountainous regions of Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and Jordan.

In Syria, their population is estimated at around 700,000 (of around 23 million total Syrian population), with the majority residing in the southern As-Suwayda Governorate – or province – which serves as their traditional stronghold.

Since the 2011 uprising against the Assad regime, the Druze have maintained a degree of autonomy, successfully defending their territory from various threats, including ISIS and other jihadist groups.

Following Assad’s fall late last year, the Druze — along with other minority groups such as the Kurds in the east and Alawites in the west — have called for the country to be federalized.

They advocate for a decentralised model that would grant greater autonomy to regional communities.

However, the transitional government in Damascus is pushing for a centralised state and seeking to reassert full control over the entire Syrian territory. This fundamental disagreement has led to periodic clashes between Druze forces and government-aligned troops.

Despite the temporary ceasefire, tensions remain high. Given the core political dispute remains unresolved, many expect renewed conflict to erupt in the near future.

Why is Israel involved?

The ousting of the Assad regime created a strategic opening for Israel to expand its influence in southern Syria. Israel’s involvement is driven by two primary concerns:

1. Securing its northern border

Israel views the power vacuum in Syria’s south as a potential threat, particularly the risk of anti-Israeli militias establishing a foothold near its northern border.

During the recent clashes, the Israeli military declared

The Israeli Defence Forces will not allow a military threat to exist in southern Syria and will act against it.

Likewise, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has stated he will not allow Syrian forces south of Damascus:

We are acting to prevent the Syrian regime from harming them [the Druze] and to ensure the demilitarisation of the area adjacent to our border with Syria.

In line with these warnings, the Israeli Air Force has conducted extensive strikes against Syrian military infrastructure, targeting bases, aircraft, tanks, and heavy weaponry.

These operations are intended to prevent any future buildup of military capacity that could be used against Israel from the Syrian side of the border.

2. Supporting a federated Syria

Israel is backing the two prominent allied minorities in Syria — the Kurds in the northeast and the Druze in the south — in their push for a federal governance model.

A fragmented Syria, divided along ethnic and religious lines, is seen by some Israeli policymakers as a way to maintain Israeli domination in the region.

This vision is part of what some Israeli officials have referred to as a “New Middle East” — one where regional stability and normalisation emerge through reshaped borders and alliances.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar recently echoed this strategy, stating:

A single Syrian state with effective control and sovereignty over all its territory is unrealistic.

For Israel, the logical path forward is autonomy for the various minorities in Syria within a federal structure.

The United States’ role?

According to unconfirmed reports, Washington has privately urged Israel to scale back its military strikes on Syria in order to prevent further escalation and preserve regional stability.

The US is promoting increased support for Syria’s new regime in an effort to help it reassert control and stabilise the country.

There are also indications the US and its allies are encouraging the Syrian government to move toward normalisation with Israel. Reports suggest Tel Aviv has held talks with the new Sharaa-led regime about the possibility of Syria joining the Abraham Accords (diplomatic agreements between Israel and several Arab states), which the regime in Damascus appears open to.

US Special Envoy Tom Barrack has described the recent clashes as “worrisome”, calling for de-escalation and emphasising the need for

a peaceful, inclusive outcome for all stakeholders – including the Druze, Bedouin tribes, the Syrian government, and Israeli forces.

Given the deep-rooted political divisions, competing regional agendas, and unresolved demands from minority groups, the unrest in southern Syria is unlikely to end soon.

Despite another temporary ceasefire, underlying tensions remain. Further clashes are not only possible but highly probable.

Ali Mamouri 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 is Israel bombing Syria? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-israel-bombing-syria-261259

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Pintu Kumar Mahla, Research Associate at the Water Resources Research Institute, University of Arizona

With the future of a crucial water-sharing treaty between India and Pakistan up in the air, one outside party is looking on with keen interest: China.

For 65 years, the Indus Waters Treaty has seen the two South Asian rivals share access and use of the Indus Basin, a vast area covered by the Indus River and its tributaries that also stretches into Afghanistan and China.

For much of that history, there has been widespread praise for the agreement as a successful demonstration of cooperation between adversarial states over a key shared resource. But experts have noted the treaty has long held the potential for conflict. Drafters failed to factor in the effects of climate change, and the Himalayan glaciers that feed the rivers are now melting at record rates, ultimately putting at risk the long-term sustainability of water supply. Meanwhile, the ongoing conflict over Kashmir, where much of the basin is situated, puts cooperation at risk.

With treaty on ice, China steps in

That latest provocation threatening the treaty was a terrorist attack in the Indian union territory of Jammu and Kashmir on April 22, 2025. In response to that attack, which India blamed on Pakistan and precipitated a four-day confrontation, New Delhi temporarily suspended the treaty.

But even before that attack, India and Pakistan had been locked in negotiation over the future of the treaty – the status of which has been in the hands of international arbitrators since 2016. In the latest development, on June 27, 2025, the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued a supplementary award in favor of Pakistan, arguing that India’s holding of the treaty in abeyance did not affect its jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, the treaty does not allow for either party to unilaterally suspend the treaty, the ruling suggested.

Amid the wrangling over the treaty’s future, Pakistan has turned to China for diplomatic and strategic support. Such support was evident during the conflict that took place following April’s terrorist attack, during which Pakistan employed Chinese-made fighter jets and other military equipment against its neighbor.

Meanwhile, in an apparent move to counter India’s suspension of the treaty, China and Pakistan have ramped up construction of a major dam project that would provide water supply and electricity to parts of Pakistan.

So, why is China getting involved? In part, it reflects the strong relationship between Pakistan and China, developed over six decades.

But as an expert in hydro politics, I believe Beijing’s involvement raises concerns: China is not a neutral observer in the dispute. Rather, Beijing has long harbored a desire to increase its influence in the region and to counter an India long seen as a rival. Given the at-times fraught relationship between China and India – the two countries went to war in 1962 and continue to engage in sporadic border skirmishes – there are concerns in New Delhi that Beijing may respond by disrupting the flow of rivers in its territory that feed into India.

In short, any intervention by Beijing over the Indus Waters Treaty risks stirring up regional tensions.

Wrangling over waters

The Indus Waters Treaty has already endured three armed conflicts between Pakistan and India, and until recently it served as an exemplar of how to forge a successful bilateral agreement between two rival neighbors.

Under the initial terms of the treaty, which each country signed in 1960, India was granted control over three eastern rivers the countries share – Ravi, Beas and Satluj – with an average annual flow of 40.4 billion cubic meters. Meanwhile, Pakistan was given access to almost 167.2 billion cubic meters of water from the western rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.

In India, the relatively smaller distribution has long been the source of contention, with many believing the treaty’s terms are overly generous to Pakistan. India’s initial demand was for 25% of the Indus waters.

For Pakistan, the terms of the division of the Indus Waters Treaty are painful because they concretized unresolved land disputes tied to the partition of India in 1947. In particular, the division of the rivers is framed within the broader political context of Kashmir. The three major rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab – flow through Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir before entering the Pakistan-controlled western part of the Kashmir region.

But the instability of the Kashmir region – disputes around the Line of Control separating the Indian- and Pakistan-controlled areas are common – underscores Pakistan’s water vulnerability.

Nearly 65% of Pakistanis live in the Indus Basin region, compared with 14% for India. It is therefore not surprising that Pakistan has warned that any attempt to cut off the water supply, as India has threatened, would be considered an act of war.

It also helps to explain Pakistan’s desire to develop hydropower on the rivers it controls. One-fifth of Pakistan’s electricity comes from hydropower, and nearly 21 hydroelectric power plants are located in the Indus Basin region.

Since Pakistan’s economy relies heavily on agriculture and the water needed to maintain agricultural land, the fate of the Indus Waters Treaty is of the utmost importance to Pakistan’s leaders.

Such conditions have driven Islamabad to be a willing partner with China in a bid to shore up its water supply.

China provides technical expertise and financial support to Pakistan for numerous hydropower projects in Pakistan, including the Diamer Bhasha Dam and Kohala Hydropower Project. These projects play a significant role in addressing Pakistan’s energy requirements and have been a key aspect of the transboundary water relationship between the two nations.

Using water as a weapon?

With it’s rivalry with India and its desire to simultaneously work with Pakistan on numerous issues, China increasingly sees itself as a stakeholder in the Indus Waters Treaty, too. Chinese media narratives have framed India as the aggressor in the dispute, warning of the danger of using “water as a weapon” and noting that the source of the Indus River lies in China’s Western Tibet region.

Doing so fits Beijing’ s greater strategic presence in South Asian politics. After the terrorist attack, China Foreign Minister Wang Yi reaffirmed China’s support for Pakistan, showcasing the relationship as an “all-weather strategic” partnership and referring to Pakistan as an “ironclad friend.”

And in response to India’s suspension of the treaty, China announced it was to accelerate work on the significant Mohmand hydropower project on the tributary of the Indus River in Pakistan.

Chinese investment in Pakistan’s hydropower sector presents substantial opportunities for both countries in regards to energy security and promoting economic growth.

The Indus cascade project under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor initiative, for example, promises to provide cumulative hydropower generation capacity of around 22,000 megawatts. Yet the fact that project broke ground in Gilgit-Baltistan, a disputed area in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, underscores the delicacy of the situation.

Beijing’s backing of Pakistan is largely motivated by a mix of economic and geopolitical interests, particularly in legitimizing the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. But it comes at the cost of stirring up regional tensions.

As such, the alignment of Chinese and Pakistani interests in developing hydro projects can pose a further challenge to the stability of South Asia’s water-sharing agreements, especially in the Indus Basin. Recently, the chief minister of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which borders China, warned that Beijing’s hydro projects in the Western Tibet region amount to a ticking “water bomb.”

To diffuse such tensions – and to get the Indus Waters Treaty back on track – it behooves India, China and Pakistan to engage in diplomacy and dialogue. Such engagement is, I believe, essential in addressing the ongoing water-related challenges in South Asia.

Pintu Kumar Mahla is affiliated with the Water Resources Research Center, the University of Arizona. He is also a member of the International Association of Water Law (AIDA).

Pintu Kumar Mahla has not received funding related to this article.

– ref. China’s insertion into India-Pakistan waters dispute adds a further ripple in South Asia – https://theconversation.com/chinas-insertion-into-india-pakistan-waters-dispute-adds-a-further-ripple-in-south-asia-258891

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Garret Martin, Hurst Senior Professorial Lecturer, Co-Director Transatlantic Policy Center, American University School of International Service

The U.S. bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, sent shock waves around the world. It marked a dramatic reversal for the Trump administration, which had just initiated negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program. Dispensing with diplomacy, the U.S. opted for the first time for direct military involvement in the then-ongoing Israeli-Iranian conflict.

European governments have long pushed for a diplomatic solution to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Yet, the reaction in the capitals of Europe to the U.S. bombing of the nuclear facilities was surprisingly subdued.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen noted Israel’s “right to defend itself and protect its people.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was equally supportive, arguing that “this is dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us.” And a joint statement by the E3 – France, the U.K. and Germany – tacitly justified the U.S. bombing as necessary to prevent the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

Europe’s responses to the Israeli and American strikes were noteworthy because of how little they discussed the legality of the attacks. There was no such hesitation when Russia targeted civilian nuclear energy infrastructure in Ukraine in 2022.

But the timid reaction also underscored Europe’s bystander role, contrasting with its past approach on that topic. Iran’s nuclear program had been a key focal point of European diplomacy for years. The E3 nations initiated negotiations with Tehran back in 2003. They also helped to facilitate the signing of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which also included Russia, the European Union, China, the U.S. and Iran. And the Europeans sought to preserve the agreement, even after the unilateral U.S. withdrawal in 2018 during President Donald Trump’s first term.

As a scholar of transatlantic relations and security, I believe Europe faces long odds to once again play an impactful role in strengthening the cause of nuclear nonproliferation with Iran. Indeed, contributing to a new nuclear agreement with Iran would require Europe to fix a major rift with Tehran, overcome its internal divisions over the Middle East and manage a Trump administration that seems less intent on being a reliable ally for Europe.

Growing rift between Iran and Europe

For European diplomats, the 2015 deal was built on very pragmatic assumptions. It only covered the nuclear dossier, as opposed to including other areas of contention such as human rights or Iran’s ballistic missile program. And it offered a clear bargain: In exchange for greater restrictions on its nuclear program, Iran could expect the lifting of some existing sanctions and a reintegration into the world economy.

As a result, the U.S. withdrawal from the deal in 2018 posed a fundamental challenge to the status quo. Besides exiting, the Trump White House reimposed heavy secondary sanctions on Iran, which effectively forced foreign companies to choose between investing in the U.S. and Iranian markets. European efforts to mitigate the impact of these U.S. sanctions failed, thus undermining the key benefit of the deal for Iran: helping its battered economy. It also weakened Tehran’s faith in the value of Europe as a partner, as it revealed an inability to carve real independence from the U.S.

After 2018, relations between Europe and Iran deteriorated significantly. Evidence of Iranian state-sponsored terrorism and Iran-linked plots on European soil hardly helped. Moreover, Europeans strongly objected to Iran supplying Russia with drones in support of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine – and later on, ballistic missiles as well. On the flip side, Iran deeply objected to European support for Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks.

These deep tensions remain a significant impediment to constructive negotiations on the nuclear front. Neither side currently has much to offer to the other, nor can Europe count on any meaningful leverage to influence Iran. And Europe’s wider challenges in its Middle East policy only compound this problem.

Internal divisions

In 2015, Europe could present a united front on the Iranian nuclear deal in part because of its limited nature. But with the nonproliferation regime now in tatters amid Trump’s unilateral actions and the spread of war across the region, it is now far harder for European diplomats to put the genie back in the bottle. That is particularly true given the present fissures over increasingly divisive Middle East policy questions and the nature of EU diplomacy.

Europe remains very concerned about stability in the Middle East, including how conflicts might launch new migratory waves like in 2015-16, when hundreds of thousands of Syrians fled to mainland Europe. The EU also remains very active economically in the region and is the largest funder of the Palestinian Authority. But it has been more of a “payer than player” in the region, struggling to translate economic investment into political influence.

In part, this follows from the longer-term tendency to rely on U.S. leadership in the region, letting Washington take the lead in trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it also reflects the deeper divisions between EU member nations.

With foreign policy decisions requiring unanimity, EU members have often struggled to speak with one voice on the Middle East. Most recently, the debates over whether to suspend the economic association agreement with Israel over its actions in Gaza or whether to recognize a Palestinian state clearly underscored the existing EU internal disagreements.

Unless Europe can develop a common approach toward the Middle East, it is hard to see it having enough regional influence to matter in future negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. This, in turn, would also affect how it manages its crucial, but thorny, relations with the U.S.

Europe in the shadow of Trump

The EU was particularly proud of the 2015 nuclear deal because it represented a strong symbol of multilateral diplomacy. It brought together great powers in the spirit of bolstering the cause of nuclear nonproliferation.

Ten years on, the prospects of replicating such international cooperation seem rather remote. Europe’s relations with China and Russia – two key signers of the original nuclear deal – have soured dramatically in recent years. And ties with the United States under Trump have also been particularly challenging.

Dealing with Washington, in the context of the Iran nuclear program, presents a very sharp dilemma for Europe.

Trying to carve a distinct path may be appealing, but it lacks credibility at this stage. Recent direct talks with Iranian negotiators produced little, and Europe is not in a position to give Iran guarantees that it would not face new strikes from Israel.

And pursuing an independent path could easily provoke the ire of Trump, which Europeans are keen to avoid. There has already been a long list of transatlantic disputes, whether over trade, Ukraine or defense spending. European policymakers would be understandably reticent to invest time and resources in any deal that Trump could again scuttle at a moment’s notice.

Trump, too, is scornful of what European diplomacy could achieve, declaring recently that Iran doesn’t want to talk to Europe. He has instead prioritized bilateral negotiations with Tehran. Alignment with the U.S., therefore, may not translate into any great influence. Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, after all, happened without forewarning for his allies.

Thus, Europe will continue to pay close attention to Iran’s nuclear program. But, constrained by poor relations with Tehran and its internal divisions on the Middle East, it is unlikely that it will carve out a major role on the nuclear dossier as long as Trump is in office.

Garret Martin receives funding from the European Union for the organization, the Transatlantic Policy Center, that he co-directs.

– ref. Europe is stuck in a bystander role over Iran’s nuclear program after US, Israeli bombs establish facts on the ground – https://theconversation.com/europe-is-stuck-in-a-bystander-role-over-irans-nuclear-program-after-us-israeli-bombs-establish-facts-on-the-ground-260740

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Louise Gentle, Principal Lecturer in Wildlife Conservation, Nottingham Trent University

Is it true that male animals are dominant over females? Previous studies have often found male-biased power in primates and other mammals.

A new study, investigating physical encounters between members of the same species in 121 primates (around a quarter of all primate species) found that half of all aggressive contests were between males and females. But males won these contests in only 17% of primate populations, with females dominating in 13% – making it almost as likely for females to dominate males.

The remaining 70% of primate populations showed no clear-cut dominance of one sex over the other. This study may have shown different results to previous research because it assessed individual contests rather than categorising species based on their social structure and physical attributes.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

The new study found male dominance, where males have a greater ability to influence the behaviour of the opposite sex, to be prevalent in primate species where the males are much larger than the females. This enables males to gain dominance through physical force or coercion. It was also widespread in species where males have weapons and mate with lots of females.

This is typical of African and Asian monkeys and the great apes, such as gorillas. Weighing in at around 200kg, a silverback male can be twice the size of the females within his troop. Male gorillas also have large canine teeth that can seriously injure or even kill other gorillas.

Male dominance often twins with weapons throughout the animal kingdom, – horns, antlers, claws or tusks. The largest antlers ever known were those of the now extinct Irish elk, spanning lengths up to 3.5m.

Female dominance

Female power was seen in primate species that had a scarcity of females, one exclusive sexual partner, similar sized males and females but did not have bodily weapons, according to the new study. These are all factors that give females more choice over who to mate with.

Female dominance was also seen in species where fighting with a male was less risky for the dependent offspring of females. For example, some primates “park” their young on their own in nests while foraging, rather than carrying them around. If a mother is holding her baby when she’s attacked, she may submit to protect her young.

Finally, matriarchal societies were common in species that live primarily in trees, which makes it easier to flee an attacker.

Female-dominated species were more likely in lorises, galagos and lemurs. So, contrary to the film Madagascar where King Julien is the king of the lemurs, females are, in fact, in charge. In the ring-tailed lemurs, females control access to food and mates, and maintain the dominance hierarchy where males are often at the bottom.

This is also true of bonobos, the closest relatives of humans. Although male bonobos are larger, females form coalitions to overcome the physical power of the males and force them into submission. This show of solidarity has also been shown in humans.

Think of how the suffragettes campaigned for women’s rights to vote in the UK. Or more recently, how women demanded new safety measures after Sarah Everard was murdered by Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens in 2021.

Although female dominance has been documented less often in the wider animal kingdom, there are some examples that defy expectations. Spotted hyenas have a matriarchal society where females dominate the clans. They even have a pseudo-penis that they erect to indicate submission to more dominant individuals.

---

Read more:
Sex and power in the animal kingdom: seven animals that will make you reconsider what you think you know

---

Naked mole rats have a queen that gives birth to all of the young while her offspring find food and defend the nest. The males are subordinate to the queen, but so too are the other females. In fact, the queen bullies the other members of her colony so much that the females are all rendered sterile through stress.

But what about the 70% of primate species that were found to show no dominant sex bias in the new study? These were largely the South American monkeys such as marmosets, tamarins and capuchins, that are generally small, live in trees, are social and omnivorous.

They also tended to have a prehensile tail that helps them grasp things. The ecology of these species fall in the middle of the male and female dominated species, with size difference and weapons being neither extreme nor absent, mating systems being neither polygamous nor monogamous, and the frequency of females being nether abundant nor rare.

The absence of a definitive sex-bias in dominance found in the majority of primate species may be a result of the rarity of contests between males and females, or because males and females were both equally likely to win. Nevertheless, dominance varied within species. For example the percentage of intersexual contests won by female patas monkeys ranged from 0% to 61%, depending on the population studied.

What does this mean for humans?

Human traits are not skewed towards those of male-dominated societies in other primates. We may not live in trees but males do not have natural weapons. Males are not always bigger than females, females do not tend to outnumber males and our sexual habits are varied.

Humans are actually more aligned to the 70% of species that show no clear distinction in sex biases, where species of either sex can become dominant. Let’s see which way evolution takes us.

Louise Gentle works for Nottingham Trent University.

– ref. Alpha males are surprisingly rare among primates – new research – https://theconversation.com/alpha-males-are-surprisingly-rare-among-primates-new-research-260472

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Antony Black, Lecturer, Life Sciences, University of Westminster

Blindness, pneumonia, severe diarrhoea and even death – measles virus infections, especially in children, can have devastating consequences. Fortunately, we have a safe and effective defence. Measles vaccines are estimated to have averted more than 60 million deaths between 2000 and 2023.

Yet despite this success, measles cases are rising sharply in the UK and around the world. This global surge is the result of several factors, from vaccine hesitancy to missed immunisation campaigns, leaving many children unprotected and vulnerable.

But there’s more at stake than just measles itself. Emerging research suggests that the measles vaccination may offer surprising additional health benefits. Children who receive the vaccine have been shown to have a significantly lower risk of infections from diseases unrelated to measles.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

---

One explanation for this broader benefit is the idea of “measles amnesia.” This refers to the ability of the measles virus to erase parts of the body’s immune memory.

Our immune system contains various cells that protect us from infections. Some produce antibodies that neutralise viruses, while others detect and destroy infected cells. Immune memory allows the body to “remember” past infections and mount faster responses in the future.

However, measles infection may reduce the number and diversity of these memory cells – leaving children vulnerable to a wide range of diseases they had previously developed immunity to. In other words, the virus doesn’t just make children ill in the short term, it may also undo years of immune protection.

In one study, researchers found that between 11% and 73% of antibodies targeting other diseases were lost after a measles infection in unvaccinated children. This immune depletion was not observed in children who had received the vaccine, suggesting that vaccination protects against this damaging effect.

This broad loss of immune protection may explain why measles outbreaks are often followed by spikes in other infectious diseases. Ongoing studies are exploring the impact of measles amnesia in regions such as West Africa, where measles and other infections remain widespread.

A vaccine that does more?

Another theory for the vaccine’s broader benefit is known as the “non-specific effect”. Unlike measles amnesia, which explains how the virus weakens immunity, the non-specific effect suggests that the measles vaccine actively strengthens the immune system against a wide range of pathogens.

Recent research has shown that measles vaccination may enhance the function of certain immune cells, making them more effective at fighting off other diseases. Some scientists believe this effect, rather than protection against amnesia alone, could be the primary reason why vaccinated children have better overall health outcomes.

The measles vaccine is a live attenuated vaccine, which means it uses a weakened version of the virus to stimulate a strong immune response. Live vaccines, including the BCG vaccine for tuberculosis, are known to provide broad immune training effects, which may explain this non-specific protection.

Forgotten the dangers

In the 1960s, before widespread vaccination, measles caused around 2.6 million deaths per year. It’s hard to imagine today, but that’s partly the problem.

As measles became rare, society began to forget how serious it is. We forgot how contagious it is (one infected person can spread the virus to up to 90% of nearby unvaccinated people) and we forgot how effective vaccination is (two doses provide more than 90% long-term protection).

And in some circles, this fading memory has been replaced by something more dangerous: mistrust. Misinformation, vaccine myths, and anti-vaccine rhetoric are spreading, just like the virus itself.

So, whether the additional protection offered by the vaccine is due to prevention of immune amnesia, a non-specific immune boost, or both, the takeaway is the same: Vaccinate children against measles. Because when we protect them from measles, we may also be protecting them from so much more.

Antony Black 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. Measles isn’t just dangerous – it may erase your immune system – https://theconversation.com/measles-isnt-just-dangerous-it-may-erase-your-immune-system-261136