As per the latest data released by Transforming Access to Student Outcomes in Higher Education (TASO) and the Policy Institute at King's College London, the number of UK students reporting mental health difficulties tripled. The estimate reveals that around 300,000 students could now be experiencing mental health struggles. Of the total, 18% of students reported some kind of mental health issue in 2024.

As per the reports, this estimate is triple what was reported in 2017, where it was at 6%. Experts also say that Covid-19 pandemic is "often considered to have contributed to this, it does not explain the ongoing rise in mental health difficulties." Another reason could also be the "changing definition and increasing openness about mental health" which has led to a rise in numbers. The report notes, "This trend pre-dates the Covid-19 pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis. Although these factors play a part in students' deteriorating mental health, they cannot therefore be the only explanation."

How Did The Report Conclude?

The report drew data collected over the latest Student Academic Experience Survey of 93,212 students. From the survey, it was found that there exist significant disparities between demographic groups, with women being twice as likely to report mental health difficulties, about 22% as compared to men, at 11%.

What Did The Results Reveal?

The results revealed that students who identified as LGBTQ experienced the highest rates of mental health challenges. This has actually lessened the hope that conditions for LGBTQ students are improving, which may not have been a positive case.

Of them, 42% are bisexual and lesbian students, whereas last year it was 35% and 32% respectively. The report also noted that mental health difficulties among lesbian women and gay men rose three times the rate of straight people, and among bisexual and asexual people, it was twice as high. For trans students, the number jumped from 25% in 2023 to 40% in 2024.

Is The LGBTQ+ Prone To Mental Health Crisis?

As per the Child Mind Institute, being LGBTQ+ does not cause mental health problems, but because these kids often face factors like rejection, discrimination and violence, they are at a higher risk of challenges including depression, anxiety, and even attempting suicide.

A UTAH Health study quotes Anna Docherty, PhD, LP, assistant professor of psychiatry at Huntsman Mental Health Institute that, "likely with any identity, feeling different - or worse, unaccepted as you are is a significant risk factor of mental health struggle." The data reveals that LGBTQ+ teens are six times more likely to experience symptoms of depression than non-LGBTQ+ identifying teens. They are also more than twice as likely to feel suicidal and more than four times as likely to attempt suicide. In the US alone, 48% of transgender adults report that they have considered suicide in the last year, compared to 4% of the overall population.

What Do These Findings Mean?

TASO's academic lead and professor of public policy at King's College London, Michael Sanders said, "LGBTQ students and women bear the brunt of the rise in declining mental health and urgent action is needed to understand and address these trends."

The Supreme Court has asked 19 states and Union Territories that have not yet done so to consider declaring cancer a “notifiable disease”, stressing the need for a uniform system to report cancer cases across India.

The direction was issued on August 11 by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation seeking mandatory cancer notification across the country.

The court was informed that 17 of India's 36 states and UTs have already notified cancer, following recommendations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare.

“Why don't you issue some mandatory guidelines for all States/UTs? There should be uniform policy,” CJI Surya Kant asked the Centre during the hearing.

The court subsequently asked the remaining states and UTs to consider the recommendations and take appropriate decisions, while also asking them to file compliance affidavits.

What Does ‘Notifiable Disease’ Mean?

A notifiable disease is a condition that healthcare providers or designated authorities are legally required to report to the government when it is diagnosed.

Unlike infectious diseases, cancer is not being considered for notification because it spreads from person to person. The purpose behind SC's recommendation is surveillance.

Mandatory reporting to the government could give health authorities a clearer picture of how many new cancer cases are being diagnosed, where they are occurring, which cancer types are increasing and which populations may be disproportionately affected.

This information can help governments take initiatives towards planning screening programmes, cancer centres, diagnostic facilities, medicines, and other healthcare resources.

Despite the encouraging move, simply making cancer notifiable will not automatically lead to earlier diagnosis and better planning for resources to treat and manage the disease.

However, more complete data can help identify gaps in screening and follow-up care and allow health programmes to be targeted more effectively.

Also read: Why Non-Smokers Too Are At High Risk Of Lung Cancer

How Could SC's Move Help In Early Cancer Detection?

The issue has been linked to alarming gaps in India's cancer surveillance system. The Parliamentary Standing Committee had recommended that cancer be made a notifiable disease to improve the accuracy of cancer incidence and mortality data.

The Committee also noted that cancer deaths can sometimes be recorded under broader causes, making it difficult to establish the true burden of cancer in the country. It recommended stronger cancer registration and a digital system for real-time data collection to anaylse the actual number of cases and their severity.

The PIL was filed by Dr Anurag Srivastava, former Head of the Department of Surgical Disciplines at AIIMS, New Delhi.

His petition states that the absence of mandatory reporting has resulted in inaccurate data and inadequate surveillance. It also proposes a centralised, real-time digital registry for cancer, similar to the CoWIN platform used during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Also read: The Office Actress Lucy Davis Reveals Incurable Stage 4 Breast Cancer: 'It’s Too Late For Chemo'

The Centre has pointed out that health is a State subject. Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik told the court, “Moreover, 17 states have notified the disease.”

The court's latest direction therefore puts the focus on closing the gap between states that already have mandatory notification systems and those that do not.

British health journal BMJ Public Health has retracted a 2024 paper that suggested COVID-19 vaccination could have contributed to excess deaths during the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Published on May 6, 2024, by researchers at the Netherlands-based Princess Máxima Centre, the paper was retracted on August 11, 2026, following concerns over its discussion of the possible causes of excess mortality.

The retraction notice cited “misinformation in the discussion regarding the possible causes of excess mortality” and said the paper did not sufficiently describe the limitations of the authors’ work.

What Did the Paper Claim?

The paper analyzed data from the “Our World in Data” database and the World Mortality Dataset to examine excess deaths during the pandemic.

It questioned whether COVID-19 containment measures and vaccination could have contributed to continued excess mortality in some regions. However, the authors did not establish a link between COVID-19 vaccines and excess deaths. Instead, they called for more data to investigate the possible causes, AFP reported.

About a month after publication, BMJ Public Health issued an expression of concern, stating that the study “does not establish any such link.”

Despite that clarification, the paper was subsequently cited by vaccine-sceptic publications as evidence of a connection between COVID-19 vaccination and excess mortality.

Paper Cited in US Senate Hearing

Even as the BMJ Group investigated the paper, Mostert, one of its original authors, had resigned from the Princess Máxima Centre.

In June 2026, she appeared before a US Senate subcommittee, where she claimed that her research had been sabotaged.

The Princess Máxima Centre had previously “emphatically” distanced itself from the publication and stated that it “strongly supports vaccination.”

The BMJ Group said the retraction was supported by two of the four authors and by the Princess Máxima Centre.

Critics Raised Concerns

Critics raised concerns about the paper’s treatment of evidence relating to vaccines, including alleged misquotes and omissions, and described parts of the discussion as inappropriate.

Ariel Karlinsky, an economist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and co-creator of the World Mortality Dataset, repeatedly contacted the journal from June 2024 seeking a retraction.

Karlinsky said the analysis misused his data and “copied whole blocks of text and mathematical notation,” according to Retraction Watch.

Investigation Found Carelessness

The Princess Máxima Centre investigated authors Minke Huibers and Gertjan Kaspers in 2024. Mostert’s work was not examined because she was “not able to cooperate with the investigation.”

An anonymised summary of the January 2025 report was published alongside the retraction. It found no research misconduct but concluded that Kaspers and Huibers had demonstrated “carelessness, ignorance and negligence.”

The report also found that the paper gave disproportionate attention to COVID-19 measures and vaccination as possible causes of excess mortality while largely overlooking alternative explanations. It said the paper “misleadingly and unilaterally cites literature that supports its own arguments.”

Kaspers and Huibers, along with their institution, requested the paper’s retraction, citing concerns that it was being misinterpreted and could pose a public health risk. However, they disagreed with the journal’s conclusion that the paper contained misinformation.

The UK government has announced plans to accelerate the country’s move away from animal testing in science, with £22 million earmarked for projects that use human-based alternatives to test treatments.

The government said the investment could help patients gain faster access to more effective medicines while reducing the need for animal testing.

The strategy, drawn up in 2025 under then Prime Minister Keir Starmer, aims to accelerate the development and use of alternative research methods known as “new approach methodologies” (NAMs). These include organoids, organ-on-a-chip systems and artificial intelligence to model biological processes and analyse data.

2.54 Million Animal Testing Procedures in 2025

The latest data showed that 2.54 million animal testing procedures were carried out in Great Britain in 2025, down 3.8% from 2024.

Science Minister Chris McDonald said the new investment would support researchers in developing alternatives to animal testing.

“This is all about backing our world-leading researchers and innovators to improve lives, giving them the tools they need to deliver more effective treatments for horrendous diseases like cancer, while also preventing the need for animal testing wherever possible,” McDonald said.

“It’s also a boost for our life sciences sector – with British firms using samples donated by real people and harnessing AI to predict how a medicine behaves – fueling opportunities for new investment and new jobs, and ensuring Britain is better off,” he added.

What Is Being Proposed?

A major part of the investment is a £20 million Pre-clinical Translational Models Hub in Cambridge. The centre will develop and share models of human tissue grown from cells donated by NHS patients, allowing researchers to test new treatments.

The new hub will focus on organoids — tiny, simplified versions of human organs or tissues, such as the gut, tumours and brain, grown from patient cells.

In addition, nine new high-tech projects worth £2 million will develop alternative ways to test medicines using human biology rather than animals.

These include beating heart cells in a dish, lab-grown human ear models and AI systems that predict how drugs move through the body.

The government said these approaches could help treatments for conditions such as cancer and inflammatory bowel disease be developed faster and more precisely, while reducing reliance on traditional animal studies.

How Will Miniature Human Organs Help Drug Testing?

Because organoids retain important features of a patient’s own biology, researchers can use them to study how a real person may respond to a drug.

They can provide additional insights that complement information currently obtained through animal studies.

Scientists at universities and drug companies will be able to use these models in their own laboratories to identify which medicines are worth pursuing. The government said this could help reduce the time needed to bring potentially life-changing treatments to patients.

“Because these miniature human tissues retain many of the unique biological characteristics of the individual patient, they allow us to understand disease more accurately and test potential treatments before they ever reach the clinic,” said Professor Matthias Zilbauer of the University of Cambridge.

“This has the potential to bring more effective, personalised treatments to patients while reducing the time and cost of developing new medicines and our reliance on animal models,” he added.

Will This End Animal Testing?

Researchers have stressed that the new methods will not completely replace animal testing in the near future.

“We’re not saying there won’t be any animal use in the near or foreseeable future, because there are still certain issues that cannot be tested in these new models, but the reduction is very real,” Zilbauer, a clinical professor of paediatric gastroenterology at the Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, told The Guardian.