How YOU can help butterflies, just by counting them
In 2024 a decline in numbers was put down to a wet spring and cooler summer, however butterfly numbers have seen a general decline since the 1970s. Experts warn that things like loss of habitat, climate change and chemicals used in pesticides are largely to blame. Dr Richard Fox, head of science at Butterfly Conservation said: "Butterfly numbers fluctuate from year to year in response to the weather, and the warm, sunny conditions over recent weeks have been much better for butterflies than the wetter, cool conditions last year, which resulted in one of the worst years for UK butterflies on record."How much butterflies have bounced back will only become clear if people get out, in their thousands, to take part in the Big Butterfly Count," he said. "Although the recent sunshine is great for adult butterflies, the growing drought across many parts of Britain is bad news for their caterpillar offspring, which need growing plants to feed on."
How do I get involved in the Big Butterfly Count?
To take part, first you need to ask a grown-up to go onto the Big Butterfly Count website. You can then go out together, and maybe take a friend or sibling with you, and find an outdoor space.Set a 15 minute timer, and see how many butterflies you count in that time.Note them down, and see if you can spot certain colours or types of butterfly.The count runs from Friday 18th July to Sunday 10th August 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Science could enable a fascist future. Especially if we don't learn from the past
Science is in crisis. Funding infrastructures for both basic and applied research are being systematically decimated, while in places of great power, science's influence on decision making is waning. Long-term and far-reaching studies are being shuttered, and thousands of scientists' livelihoods are uncertain, to say nothing of the incalculable casualties resulting from the abrupt removal of life-saving medical and environmental interventions. Understandably, the scientific community is working hard to weather this storm and restore funding to whatever extent possible. In times like these, it may be tempting to settle for the status quo of six months ago, wanting everything simply to go back to what it was (no doubt an improvement for science, compared to the present). But equally, such moments of crisis offer an opportunity to rebuild differently. As Arundhati Roy wrote about Covid-19 in April 2020, 'Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.' What could science look like, and what good could science bring, if we moved through the portal of the present moment into a different world? At worst, science will play its part in accelerating us toward a tech-obsessed end-times-fascist future. At best, science will broaden its power as a positive force, serving the wellbeing of humans and nature alike. Imagining this latter vision in exquisite detail is essential, and we argue here that to first envision and then work towards the best version of science, we need to reckon honestly with science's past and present. Most crucially, we need to confront the commonplace claim that science is – or ought to be – objective and apolitical, uninfluenced by human culture, norms, or values. The current moment has rudely awakened many scientists to the fact that research is indeed political, and further makes clear that scientists' attempts to distance themselves from politics will backfire. Denying the inherent entanglements of science and politics leaves scientists lacking the capacity and tools to mount effective defenses against bad-faith political attacks. This denial also allows science to go unquestioned when it undermines the needs and rights of marginalized beings and places. As much as scientists might wish for science to be cleanly separable from politics, decades of research demonstrates that this has never been true, and never could be. The field of science studies examines the inherently human processes of science – who defines what science is, who gets to conduct scientific research, who pays for it, who benefits from it, who is harmed by it – and how these human dynamics shape scientific knowledge. Feminist science studies in particular documents how power and oppression shape scientific findings and applications, demonstrating that even 'science at its most basic' is in fact inextricable from politics. Some of the most compelling, and consequential, examples of such entanglement can be found in human and animal biology. Consider an analysis of 19th-century science on human race and sex from Sally Markowitz, which clearly reveals the influence of white supremacism on basic biology. Markowitz shows how 19th-century scientists not only asserted that human races are biological categories, but also that the so-called white race is evolutionarily superior. To 'prove' this politically-motivated claim, these scientists first decided that the degree of distinction between men's and women's bodies (or 'sexual dimorphism') was proof of evolutionary superiority, and then claimed, on the basis of selective measurements, that sexual dimorphism is supposedly greater in Europeans than in Africans. Women of African descent were thus mismeasured as both less female and less human than their white counterparts – rendering all people of African descent more 'animal-like'. This 19th-century research has had far-reaching consequences, from justifying enslavement, to supporting eugenic sterilization practices well into the 20th century, to contemporary controversy around the 'femaleness' of elite Black and brown female athletes, among other examples. It may be tempting to relegate such blatant instances to the past, and claim that scientists have since corrected such mistakes. But in fact these ghosts continue to haunt us. In our new book, Feminism in the Wild, we – an evolutionary biologist and a science studies scholar – dive deep into how contemporary scientists describe and understand animal behavior, and find the dominant political perspectives of the last 200 years reflected back to us. Scientific research on mating behavior in species ranging from fruit flies to primates is entangled with patriarchal expectations of masculinity and femininity. Scientists' understanding of animals' foraging behavior mirrors a capitalist theory of economics, based upon assumptions of scarcity and optimization, and expectations of individualism are pervasive throughout scientific research on how animals behave in groups. Contemporary researchers express surprise, for instance, at elephants who alter their eating habits to accommodate a fellow herd member disabled by poachers, at ravens who alert one another to the presence of food in the dead of winter, or at female dolphins who begin lactating without having given birth in order to nurse calves whose mothers have died. Dominant evolutionary theories do not explain such instances of care on their own terms, but instead insist that these behaviors must ultimately be self-interested. Not coincidentally, these theories rooted in individualism only rose to dominance in the last 50 years or so, alongside the rise of neoliberalism. Meanwhile, eugenic perspectives, rooted in racism, classism, and ableism, constrain how scientists understand sex, intelligence, performance and more, in humans and animals alike. For example, today's scientists are still somewhat shocked by lizards who successfully navigate tree trunks and branches with missing limbs, as these agile lizards undermine the presumed correlation between an animal's appearance, performance, and survival that's captured in the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. Other scientists continue to argue that peahens (for instance) choose to mate with the most beautiful peacock, despite his expansive tail's costly impediments, because beauty is a 'favorable' trait even if it doesn't promote survival. Such arguments about female mate choice are rooted in a theory developed decades ago by mathematician and evolutionary biologist Ronald A Fisher, a vocal advocate of 'positive eugenics', which means encouraging only people with 'favorable' traits to reproduce. Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin), in his 1923 presidential address to the Eugenics Education Society, made this connection between Fisher's theories and eugenics explicit, stating: 'Wonderful results have been produced…by the action of sexual selection in all kinds of organisms…and if this be so, ought we not to enquire whether this same agency cannot be utilized in our efforts to improve the human race?' Leonard Darwin then went on to deliver an astoundingly modern-sounding description of sexual selection before considering its implications for effective eugenics propaganda. We offer these examples (and many more, in our book), to show that scientific research on the evolution of animal behavior remains thoroughly and undeniably political. But the moral of our story is not that scientists must root out all politics and strive for pure neutrality. Rather, feminist science studies illustrates how science has always been shaped by politics, and always will be. It is therefore incumbent upon scientists to confront this reality rather than deny it. Thankfully, for as long as science has been aligned with systems of oppression, there have been scientists and other scholars resisting this alignment, both explicitly and implicitly. In Feminism in the Wild, we detail the work of scientists developing new mathematical models about female mating behavior that discard old assumptions aligned with patriarchy and eugenics, instead demonstrating that it's possible and even likely that female animals are not necessarily concerned with mating with the 'best' males and that mate choice can be a more flexible and variable affair. We discuss a rich history of theories about animals' behavior in groups that take both individual and collective well-being seriously. And we explore alternatives rooted in queer, Indigenous, and Marxist standpoints, which counter the dominant view that animal behavior is all about maximizing survival and reproduction. Ultimately, we show that it is possible—and even desirable—to fold political analysis into scientific inquiry in a way that makes science more multifaceted and more honest, bringing us closer to the truth than a science which denies its politics ever could. In this historical moment scientists must embrace, rather than avoid, the political underpinnings and implications of scientific inquiry. As Science's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp put it in 2020, 'science thrives when its advocates are shrewd politicians but suffers when its opponents are better at politics.' We agree, and further insist: scientists must reckon honestly and explicitly with the ways in which the knowledge they produce, and the processes by which they produce it, are already and unavoidably political. In doing so, scientists may lose the shallow authority they have harbored by pretending to be above the political fray. They will instead have to grapple with their own political perspectives constantly, as part of the scientific process—a rougher road, no doubt, but one that will lead us to a stronger science, both more empirically rigorous and more politically resilient. Imagine if scientists seized this moment to remake science even while fighting for it. As MacArthur Genius and feminist science studies scholar Ruha Benjamin recently stated: imagination is '[not] an ephemeral afterthought that we have the luxury to dismiss or romanticize, but a resource, a battleground.' And, she continues: 'most people are forced to live inside someone else's imagination.' United in the goal of building a stronger science, we call upon scientists to put our imaginations to work differently, in ways that move us through this nightmare portal into a dreamier world, where justice is not cropped out of scientific endeavors but rather centered and celebrated. Ambika Kamath is trained as a behavioral ecologist and evolutionary biologist. She lives, works, and grows community in Oakland, California, on Ohlone land Melina Packer is Assistant Professor of Race, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, on Ho-Chunk Nation land. She is the author of Toxic Sexual Politics: Economic Poisons and Endocrine Disruptions
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
We'll use AI to spot more prostate cancer, says Science Secretary
Artificial Intelligence will be harnessed to find hidden cases of prostate cancer, the Science Secretary has said. Peter Kyle told The Telegraph that the Government is investing £168m on initiatives to use public data better and one major goal is to improve cancer screening on the NHS. A world-leading initiative led by Cancer Research UK has been given £10m in funding to improve cancer screening methods by identifying the most at-risk people and offering them personalised tests. The funding will 'develop AI-powered tools that can predict cancer risk', Mr Kyle said, and could save thousands of lives a year. The Telegraph has launched a campaign calling for a targeted national screening programme for prostate cancer, which focusses on men who are at the greatest risk. This includes men over 50, black men, whose risk is twice that of white men, and those with a family history of prostate cancer. Steve McQueen, Bob Willis and Chris Hoy are some of the high-profile British men to be recently diagnosed with the condition. Around 55,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer annually in England and around 33 men a day die from the condition. Writing for The Telegraph alongside Stian Westlake, the executive chairman of the Economic and Social Research Council, Mr Kyle said: 'This funding will support work on a project linking health records to demographics, family history and behaviour to identify those at higher risk of this devastating illness, so that it can be treated early – potentially saving thousands of lives every year.' The plan is to create flexible national screening programmes which can pick up more cases in individuals who may otherwise be missed and diagnosed only when the cancer was incurable. Officials are hoping to replicate the success of BRCA1 genetic screening. Around one in 400 people has faulty BRCA genes, which give women a 60 per cent chance of developing breast cancer. This received widespread attention and became known as the 'Angelina Jolie gene' after the Hollywood actress underwent a double mastectomy after finding out she was a carrier in 2013. The NHS now offers genetic tests to high-risk groups, such as Jewish women, to catch as many cases early as possible. Mr Kyle said: 'Just as BRCA gene screening, heroically brought to the fore by campaigners including Angelina Jolie, revolutionised how we understand and manage the risk of hereditary breast cancer, this next generation of data-driven screening could do the same for more cancers, including prostate cancer.' Scientists running the scheme hope it can enable the NHS to offer more frequent cancer screening sessions or screening at a younger age to those at higher risk, while those at lower risk could be spared unnecessary tests. People identified as higher risk could also be sent for cancer testing faster when they go to their GP with possible symptoms. The wider Administrative Data Partnership will last until 2031 and try to repurpose data that already exists to make improvements to the judicial service, education, health and other public sectors. Combining, standardising and interpreting different datasets simultaneously is a daunting challenge for scientists owing to decades of independent data collection and little crossover. However, the Government believes that vast data reserves, combined with the power of AI computing, could transform healthcare. The cancer screening project will build new models over the next five years to merge relevant data as well as creating algorithms which will process it and ensure the results are accurate and reliable. Antonis Antoniou, the programme director and professor of cancer risk prediction at the University of Cambridge, said: 'The UK's strengths in population-scale data resources, combined with advanced analytical tools like AI, offer tremendous opportunities to link disparate datasets and uncover clues that could lead to earlier detection, diagnosis, and prevention of more cancers.' Dr David Crosby, the head of prevention and early detection research at Cancer Research UK, told The Telegraph: 'The single most important thing we can do to beat cancer is to find it earlier, when treatment is more likely to be successful. 'With half a million cancer cases per year expected in the UK by 2040, we need a major shift towards more accurate diagnosis and detection of early cancer. 'The Cancer Data Driven Detection programme will link health data sources together and build the powerful new tools doctors need to identify those at highest risk of cancer and prioritise resources towards them. 'Moving towards a preventative approach to healthcare will not be easy and will take time. Cancer Research UK's investment in the programme is an investment in the future of cancer care.' Data is the key to changing lives for the better By Peter Kyle and Stian Westlake For much of our everyday lives, data is king – from digital maps getting us from A to B, to health apps keeping our fitness and sleep in check, to even streaming platforms suggesting the next drama we might want to get stuck into. For this government, making good use of data is the difference between successful policies that are rooted in evidence, and those that rely on hope, luck or intuition, which no minister, legislator or council leader wants to rely on. Ultimately data is the bedrock of decision-making, ensuring policies, programmes and funding are doing what they are intended to do – changing lives for the better. Linking data from across government to the national pupil database for example can help to really dig into the source of inequalities that trap too many Brits from childhood through to the labour market – helping us to take targeted action in boosting social mobility and shattering glass ceilings. Or by better applying it in the justice system, we can understand patterns of reoffending, stopping career criminals from inflicting more misery on the law-abiding majority. And it can forecast the impact that this government extending the national living wage has on younger workers, so that millions more who put the hours in take home the pay they deserve. What unites all of these examples is that they were all made possible by UKRI's administrative data research UK partnership. It works to connect, and make sense of, the huge wealth of data that is generated by government services, bringing it to our world class researchers securely and with the public's privacy at heart since 2018. In short it has been demonstrating the role data can play in improving lives in as many ways as we can imagine and more. But we know we can go further and too many social and economic researchers – many of the very best of whom are right here in the UK – simply can't access the data they need. It is fragmented and siloed, held in different datasets by different public organisations. That means too many rely instead on insights from abroad, which while offering much, simply can't tell the full story of life in Britain in 2025. Accessing the raw resource of all that data and translating it into a form that researchers can use is no easy task, and while we need to grow our data science expertise, we also need to build relationships and make the case to other organisations that secure data sharing has the power to change lives. That is why UKRI is investing a further £168m to continue ADR UK's programme of work through to 2031. This includes continuing our partnership with Cancer Research UK to develop AI-powered tools that can predict cancer risk based on health records, family history and behaviour. Just as BRCA gene screening, heroically brought to the fore by campaigners including Angelina Jolie, revolutionised how we understand and manage the risk of hereditary breast cancer, this next generation of data-driven screening could do the same for more cancers, including prostate cancer. This funding will support work with organisations and charities like Cancer Research UK for example, on a project linking health records to demographics, family history, and behaviour to identify those at higher risk of this devastating illness, so that it can be treated early – potentially saving thousands of lives every year. The ADR will also offer learnings for and help us shape our new national data library, a central government resource designed to bring together existing research programmes and make it easier for policymakers and public bodies to access and use data securely to improve public services. As the incredible opportunities and challenges of technology like AI advance at unprecedented speeds and as we grapple with the fate of our planet as our climate changes, using data to drive policy for the generations to come has never been more important. This government is driven by a plan for change that will transform the lives of the British people, from growing our economy so that our payslips go further, to unlocking opportunity for everyone regardless of background, and building an NHS that is fit for the future and makes the most of the opportunities in new technology. Data can play a huge part in getting that right and targeting government support where it is needed most.
BBC News
8 hours ago
- BBC News
Hundreds set to graduate from University of Wolverhampton
The University of Wolverhampton is gearing up to celebrate its class of 2025, with more than 2,600 students being recognised for their university's eight graduation ceremonies take place at the University of Wolverhampton at The Halls from Monday until Thursday. The students will join a community of more than 155,000 graduates in 130 countries across the world, becoming part of the university's global alumni individuals have also been nominated for an honorary award for exceptional contributions to their fields. This year's list includes astronaut Jannicke Mikkelsen, a graduate from the university, who has been awarded an Honorary Doctor of Mikkelsen made history earlier this year by launching into space aboard the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule from NASA's Kennedy Space served as the vehicle commander for the four-crew mission, which was a first-of-its-kind astronaut flight over Earth's poles. The space explorer has also worked in virtual reality filmmaking and extreme expedition a severe childhood accident that left her temporarily quadriplegic, she channelled her passion for technology and exploration into a thriving career in film and cinematography. Ms Mikkelsen directed the first live-concert film in virtual reality for Queen and produced documentaries with Sir David Attenborough. She also contributed to NASA projects, including a VR exhibit commemorating the Apollo 11 50th anniversary, and led a Guinness record-breaking circumnavigation of the Earth in under 48 gained a BA Hons Video and Film Production at the University of Wolverhampton. Another honorary award will go to Jai Herbert, a Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) fighter born in fighter, known as The Black Country Banger, will be awarded an Honorary Fellowship. Professor Ebrahim Adia, vice chancellor at the university, said: "We are an ambitious university that is proudly rooted in our communities. "We offer opportunity to all, regardless of background and that spirit of social mobility and aspiration to equip people with the skills they need to succeed in life and work runs through the heart of what we do." Follow BBC Wolverhampton & Black Country on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
