Category: The Conversation

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tony McNulty, Lecturer/Teaching Fellow, British Politics and Public Policy, Queen Mary University of London

Political parties with commanding parliamentary majorities are often tempted by the promise of assertive leadership and decisive action. Yet, as the events of the last few weeks reveal, a large majority is no substitute for the subtler arts of political management, party cohesion and narrative discipline.

Missteps like suspending four MPs and sacking three trade envoys are not isolated misjudgements but symptomatic of deeper issues within Labour’s approach to internal governance. These are issues that need to be addressed if this government is to make the difference needed.

At the centre of the week’s controversies sits the leader’s decision to discipline members of his own parliamentary party. On the surface, such acts might be interpreted as “factional authoritarianism” – a heavy-handed display to quell rebellion. But it is more probably rooted in clumsy party management and weakness.

---

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

---

This is especially true given Labour’s comfortable majority, which is currently around 160. It is reasonable to expect a majority party to exude a certain confidence and to practise tolerance for internal debate. It knows, after all, that a handful of dissenters pose no existential threat to the government’s legislative agenda. Instead, the government appears brittle, hyper-sensitive to criticism, and more interested in enforcing unity than fostering meaningful dialogue.

The consequences are not trivial. Rather than projecting an image of strength and competence, the government gives the impression of insecurity and control for its own sake. The sacking of trade envoys – posts which previously were barely known or understood by the public – appears to many as petty and vindictive. The broader public takeaway is not about Labour’s policy on trade or any other issue, but about its willingness to punish internal dissent.

Lost narrative and missed opportunities

A parallel failure lies in the government’s continuing inability to control or shape the public narrative. Just days before the prime minister decided to suspend his rebels, the government announced £500m for a “better futures fund” to support vulnerable children and families. This could have been a bold declaration of intent for the new government. It could have been a huge win. Yet, it was disconnected from any overarching narrative and proved yet another missed opportunity to champion a new direction for the party and the country.

Instead, media and public attention shifted immediately to the suspensions and sackings, drowning out any potential positive coverage of the government’s messaging. The chancellor’s Mansion House speech – an annual opportunity to set the agenda – fell similarly flat. Rachel Reeves received only insipid headlines before being entirely overshadowed.

The government’s inability to sequence and frame its positive announcements, and to anticipate how punitive actions would dominate the news cycle, requires urgent attention. It is not enough to make policy announcements; there must be a coherent story that MPs and the public alike can follow.

Rebellion, dissent and party discipline

The rebellion that sparked this drama was not led by perennial troublemakers, but a group of select committee chairs who are experienced, respected parliamentarians and not easily dismissed as the “usual subjects.” When the government gutted its own benefits bill to quell the backlash, a majority of rebels indeed relented. Only Rachel Maskell (one of the four MPs now suspended) and 46 others persisted in voting against the bill at third reading.

Was this really worthy of suspension, especially so early in a new parliamentary session? The government’s justification rests on the need for discipline – that rebels should “play ball” after exacting concessions. But this only works when both government and rebels understand and respect the same rules.

The claim is that the four rebels and three MPs who lost envoy status are persistent rebels, but this is an overreaction. In either case, it is clear the backbenchers felt ignored and undervalued, and that the government failed to take their concerns seriously in the first place.

There is a sense that Labour’s leadership is more interested in enforcing conformity than in building consensus. A true show of strength would be to sit down and discuss with colleagues how differing views can be accommodated, and to have some confidence in your argument and build a narrative around it.

Several warnings about internal unrest were ignored. The Whips Office flagged issues around poverty, pensions, and benefit reform, but these concerns were sidelined by Number 10. Ministers called for a broader anti-poverty strategy but again found themselves ignored. Select committee chairs, who tried for months to initiate constructive dialogue, were only heard in the final days before the bill’s debate.

External threats

Labour’s majority, while impressive, is based on fragile foundations. It won with only a 34% share of the vote. Many of the newly elected MPs are inexperienced and hold wafer thin majorities. A 5% swing against Labour would see more than 100 MPs lose their seats. External threats – an ascendant Reform UK, a possible Corbynista party, and the consolidation of the Liberal Democrats and Greens – compound the sense of fragility.

In this context, disciplining a handful of MPs as some sort of a show of strength to keep putative rebels in line, is not going to work. The government cannot afford to alienate its own MPs.

Labour’s early weeks in government provide a cautionary tale in the risks of prioritising discipline over dialogue, and of losing sight of the narrative that should bind the party and its supporters together. Most Labour MPs want the government to succeed, but early heavy-handedness breeds resentment and undermines unity just when it is most needed.

True political strength lies not in the ability to punish dissent, but in the confidence to accommodate it – building a compelling story that inspires loyalty rather than demands it.

If the government wants its MPs to sing from the same song sheet, it must first establish the melody. The significant achievements of this government – £40 billion more on public services, international trade deals, infrastructure investment, renters’ and workers’ rights, energy initiatives, advances in the living wage, and free school meals – can only resonate if they are woven into a story that MPs and the public can share.

The lesson is clear: discipline without narrative and command without consensus are recipes for internal discord and political decline.

Tony McNulty is a member of the Labour Party.

– ref. Starmer’s suspension of ‘rebel’ MPs risks alienating his party in a way he can’t afford – https://theconversation.com/starmers-suspension-of-rebel-mps-risks-alienating-his-party-in-a-way-he-cant-afford-261339

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