How contemplating art helps us to see the bigger picture
Are you tethered to your phone? Does your inbox inspire dread? Do you curse the latest productivity app for only seeming to add to your digital to-do list?
If the answer is yes, researchers from the University of Cambridge have a suggestion: stop scrolling and gaze at something beautiful instead.
A study suggests that taking time to contemplate aesthetically pleasing art can boost abstract thinking and help free us from everyday anxieties. More specifically, it appeared to induce what is known as psychological distancing, a kind of stepping back from your own thoughts, allowing for greater clarity and a healthier perspective.
'Many philosophers throughout history have suggested that engaging with aesthetic beauty invokes a special kind of psychological state,' said Professor Simone Schnall, senior
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Why the NHS may never use breakthrough Alzheimer's drugs
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) is expected to refuse the use of Alzheimer's drugs lecanemab and donanemab on the NHS, despite their success in slowing the disease's progression. The regulator's decision will reportedly be based on cost-effectiveness, as the drugs are estimated to cost between £20,000 to £25,000, which is considered too high for the limited benefit they provide. Trials showed lecanemab can slow Alzheimer's progression by 27 per cent over 18 months by removing build-ups of the protein beta-amyloid from the brain, while donanemab teaches the body's immune cells to remove the amyloid protein. Around 70,000 adults would have been eligible for treatment if the drugs had been approved. Both drugs have UK drug licenses and are available privately, but Nice estimates that the cognitive decline slowed by donanemab is not enough to justify the cost to the NHS. Alzheimer's Research UK expressed disappointment, stating that while the treatments are not perfect, they represent a vital foundation for further scientific progress.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Starmer facing challenge to intervene on assisted dying vote after more than 50 Labour MPs demand Commons delay
Sir Keir Starmer is facing a major challenge for his government to intervene and delay a vote on assisted dying to go ahead on Friday this week. A group of more than 50 Labour MPs have this weekend written to the Leader of the House Lucy Powell asking her to intervene and postpone this Friday's final third reading vote on Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill in the Commons. Instead they are demanding that the government provides more parliamentary time to scrutinise a bill which will bring 'fundamental changes' to healthcare in England. The move marks a serious split over the issue among Labour MPs and in effect is a challenge to Sir Keir who is in favour of assisted dying. Even though the bill is a free vote as a conscience issue for MPs, it is now becoming a dividing line in the Labour parliamentary party. Sir Keir and the government have consistently insisted they are 'neutral' on the issue which has been the subject of a private members bill and have attempted to take a 'hands off' approach to it. But Labour MPs including Paul Waugh, Torcuil Crichton, Florence Eshalomi, Jess Asato, Adam Jogee, Polly Billington, Debbie Abrahams, Dawn Butler, Antonia Bance, Anna Dixon, Paul Frith, Daniel Francis and dozens of others now believe the limited private members bill procedure is not good enough for an issue which will deliver huge change. The letter to Ms Powell, seen by The Independent, says: 'On Friday, Members will debate and vote on perhaps the most consequential piece of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations. 'This is not a normal Bill. It alters the foundations of our NHS, the relationship between doctor and patient, and it strips power away from Parliament, concentrating it in the hands of future Health Secretaries. 'MPs will be arriving at Westminster on Friday morning without sight of the final version of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.' They noted: 'The sponsor of the Bill [Ms Leadbeater] has proudly stated that it has received more time in Parliament than some Government Bills have. And yet; MPs have had the opportunity to vote on just 12 of 133 amendments tabled at Report Stage. 'Just fourteen percent of MPs have been afforded the opportunity to speak in the chamber on this Bill Several movers of amendments haven't been able to speak to the changes they have laid.' One of the amendments not voted on was a protection against people with anorexia and other eating disorders being subject to assisted dying put forward by Labour MP Naz Shah. Even though Ms Leadbeater had indicated she would agree to the late provision, despite rejecting similar amendments before, it did not come up for a vote. The letter went on: 'Despite this, the Bill has been radically changed from the one presented to MPs at Second Reading in November. As it stands today, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is now longer than the Government's Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill with a staggering 64 clauses and two schedules. 'The fact that such fundamental changes are being made to this Bill at the eleventh hour is not a badge of honour, it is a warning. The private member's bill process has shown itself to be a woefully inadequate vehicle for the introduction of such a foundational change to our NHS and the relationship between doctor and patient. 'New Clause 2 was added to the Bill last Friday with a sizable majority. Such a profound alteration to this Bill at the last minute reflects the discomfort uniting the House about the current format of this Bill and the desire to further amend it to protect vulnerable people.' They added: 'This is no longer about debating the abstract principle of assisted dying. The Bill before Parliament has created real concern with medical experts and charities. MPs and the Government should listen to their expertise. 'We implore you as the Leader of the House to allocate more Parliamentary time to the scrutiny of this Bill, the valid concerns that Members have about its implementation, and the consequences it could have on vulnerable populations.' However, supporters of the Bill have complained about delaying tactics used by opponents. On Friday Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine, one of the Bill's sponsors, made a point of order claiming opponents were 'hiding in the lobby toilets' during votes, to delay the Bill's progress. The Independent has approached Ms Leadbeater for comment. Other signatories to the letter include Labour MPs Antonia Bance, Florence Eshalomi, Richard Baker, Neil Coyle, Gurinder Singh Josan, Dan Francis, James Frith, Anna Dixon, Siobhan McDonagh, Katrina Murray, Julie Minns, Scott Arthur, John Grady, Richard Quigley, Debbie Abrahams, Tom Collins, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Catherine Atkinson, Rachael Maskell, Kenneth Stevenson, David Baines, David Smith, Sarah Smith, Sean Woodcock, Kirsteen Sullivan, Laurence Turner, Polly Billington, Josh Newbury, Kate Osamor, Patricia Ferguson, Jonathan Davies, Ruth Jones, Katrina Murray, Paul Foster, Adam Jogee, Blair McDougall, Naz Shah and Valerie Vaz.
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Non-US countries are 'free-riding' Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'
