Think twice before copying Denmark’s asylum policies
Published: November 14, 2025 10.29am GMT
Author
Michelle PaceProfessor in Global Studies, Roskilde University
Disclosure statement
Michelle Pace received funding from the Carlsberg Foundation for her forthcoming monograph entitled Un-welcome to Denmark. The Paradigm Shift and Refugee Integration (MUP, December 2025). (Details here: https://www.carlsbergfondet.dk/en/what-we-have-funded/cf21-0519/). She is also an Associate Fellow, Europe Program, at Chatham House.
Partners
The Conversation UK receives funding from these organisations
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.Republish this article
Share article
Print article
When the British government recently announced its plan to emulate Denmark’s asylum and immigration system, it framed the move as a way to restore fairness and regain control. But for those who know how Denmark’s system actually works, the move raises serious ethical — and practical — questions.
This is not the first time the UK and Denmark have looked to each other for ideas on tough migration policies. In 2022, both considered schemes to send asylum seekers to Rwanda and for claims to be processed there.
In the end, neither country went ahead. Denmark paused its proposals and the UK’s scheme was blocked by the courts and then ditched after a change of government.
Indeed, it is the only country in Europe to have revoked refugee protection on a large scale. And the first to reorient its laws away from integration and towards return.
I have spent years studying Denmark’s migration system and interviewing the refugees affected by it. My forthcoming book, Un-welcome to Denmark, traces the laws governing entry, residence and expulsion in Denmark’s Aliens Act, which has been amended more than 100 times over 36 years (1983–2019).
Our mission is to share knowledge and inform decisions.
About us
For context, that pace of change is unusually high, making Denmark’s immigration system one of the most frequently revised in Europe. And this has created near constant uncertainty for those living under it.
A tougher system
The turning point for Denmark’s asylum system came in 2015, when a change to the Aliens Act allowed authorities to revoke refugee status if conditions in someone’s home country had improved — even when those improvements were fragile or unpredictable.
Between 2017 and 2018, roughly 900 Somali refugees lost their residence permits. Then in 2019, just as the Social Democrats returned to power under Mette Frederiksen, parliament approved a package of legislation that has widely been described as a “paradigm shift” in Denmark’s asylum policy.
Under this tougher system, Syrian refugees who held temporary protection had their permits reassessed. In 2022 alone, nearly 400 Syrians left Denmark, fearing they would lose their refugee status and sought protection elsewhere in Europe.
Residencies were revoked, but refugees could not be deported, because Denmark had no diplomatic relations with the then Assad government. So people were placed in so called “departure centres” — facilities designed to house people expected to leave the country (and under stricter conditions than standard refugee shelters).
Some of the Syrians I spoke with, who were detained at these centres, described the experience as extremely unpleasant — a non-life — seemingly designed to push them to leave voluntarily.
A life in limbo
Denmark has become a pioneer in restrictive immigration policies. And this has come with serious legal, ethical and moral challenges.
The European Court of Human Rights has, for example, previously found that Denmark violated the right to family life under the European Convention on Human Rights due to a three-year waiting period for refugees with temporary protection.
Last year, the European Court of Justice accused Denmark of racial discrimination for planned mass housing evictions in previously so called “ghetto” neighbourhoods (now referred to as parallel societies, where a high proportion of residents are migrants.
Refugees I’ve spoken with have told me how they often feel that integration is pointless if they might still be deported. Social isolation and limited rights for asylum seekers are the norm. Families face long waiting times for reunification despite few cases and refugees face temporary permits that hinder long-term planning.
The system is clearly designed to discourage settlement through restrictive living conditions and a lack of control over daily life, which creates a huge amount of stress and fear for those living under such rules.
Harsh and destabilising
Denmark’s asylum system shows how far a (supposedly) centre-left government can go in tightening migration policies while maintaining political support. The Social Democrats inherited a strict framework and have continued to apply it, including temporary protection, reassessment of refugee status and the use of departure centres.
For the UK, which is now considering adopting similar policies, the Danish experience offers cautionary lessons. These measures may reduce asylum numbers, but they come at a human and legal cost. Families are left in uncertainty, long-term planning is impossible and life in departure centres can be harsh and destabilising.
Any government looking to copy this approach should look beyond the statistics and consider the real experiences of the people affected. Denmark’s story is a reminder that migration policy is not just about managing numbers — it is also about the lives that are shaped by those policies.
This article was commissioned by Videnskab.dk as part of a partnership collaboration with The Conversation. You can read the Danish version of this article, here.
Illustration by Tag Hartman-Simkins / Futurism. Source: Roy Rochlin / Getty Images
While you were busy wasting your time listening to podcasts and doomscrolling on your phone, one of America’s leading AI overlords was educating himself by talking to Nazis.
This was the startling admission made by Alex Karp, cofounder and CEO of the software company Palantir, a company that’s come under increasingly heavy scrutiny for its growing role as a provider of AI-powered surveillance technology to the military and government.
In an interview with podcaster Molly O’Shea published this week, Karp, who has Jewish heritage, was discussing German culture and his time in the country before going on a tangent about how outrageous it is that people online “laud the Nazis.” Then he fessed up to something even more eyebrow-raising.
“I spend a lot of time talking to Nazis,” Karp said, implying that this is an ongoing pastime of his. “Like, real Nazis,” he emphasized.
Karp explained that it was his way of “understanding what made them tick,” before making an ironic observation.
“Part of the crazy thing about people who laud the Nazis nowadays is there’s not a single Nazi that would ever have included them in their movement and would have shipped them off to the camps quicker maybe than they shipped me off to the camps!” he chuckled.
He then pulled off the smoothest segue of all time.
“Uh, but, um, and uh, and it’s like, it’s uh but” — the interview mercifully jumps cuts — “the thing that’s crazy unique about America,” Karp began to muse.
Beyond his role as Palantir’s head honcho, Karp is known for his philosophical ramblings, his “eccentric” personality, and his affinity for German culture. He has a PhD in philosophy from Goethe University Frankfurt, and draws on his background to defend Western values — in particular American ones — as especially good for the world.
This year, for instance, he published a book about how the US needed to embrace having the most technologically advanced weapons possible to preserve its dominance. An excerpt of that book was published online as an essay under the headline “We Need a New Manhattan Project.”
Karp, however, has in recent years has shifted rightward, bashing progressives instead of claiming to be one. He has recently defended Palantir’s role in providing ICE with an Orwellian surveillance network to help locate people for deportation, and for providing the IDF, which has been internationally condemned for committing genocide in Gaza, with an AI platform designed for making decisions on the battlefield, including analyzing enemy targets. Karp’s extensive and enlightening conversations with Nazis, in other words, seemingly haven’t endowed him with any self-awareness about all the evil he’s entangled in.
CYBERSECURITY Hackers, enterprises go head-to-head with AI
AI-powered cyberattacks are getting stronger.
On Thursday, Anthropic said it disrupted the first reported AI-orchestrated cyber espionage campaign, involving agentic capabilities that go beyond just advising on attacks, to executing them autonomously. Anthropic claims “with high confidence” that the threat actor was a Chinese state-sponsored group that manipulated Claude Code to attempt to infiltrate thirty global targets.The targets include large tech companies, financial institutions, chemical manufacturers and government agencies.
Anthropic tracked the severity of the operations, banned associated accounts and notified authorities. “We’re continually working on new methods of investigating and detecting large-scale, distributed attacks like this one,” Anthropic said in the report. The incident is just one case exemplifying that hackers are getting far smarter at using AI.
Data from Google’s Threat Intelligence Group published in early November showed a shift in hackers’ AI strategies, leaning towards AI-powered malware and models being abused across the attack lifecycle.
While the potential for bad actors to leverage this tech was clear from the start, “the speed at which it materialized is unsettling,” Adam Arellano, Field CTO at Harness.io, told The Deep View. And larger, coordinated attacks may inspire others, Arellano said. “More and more of the smaller groups and even individuals will start to figure out how to use (LLMs) as well, increasing access to these types of attacks.” But that doesn’t mean that enterprises are empty-handed, Eric O’Neill, former FBI counterterrorism and counterintelligence operative and founder of The Georgetown Group and Nexasure AI, told The Deep View.
Plenty of organizations are deploying AI for counterintelligence, anomaly detection, rapid incident response and resilience in data integrity, he said. But as hackers become more sophisticated at a rapid clip, speed, adaptability and resilience are “the only winning strategies.”“The battle has escalated into something out of the 1980s film Tron: AI vs. AI, dueling across digital landscapes for control of the currency of our lives—data,” said O’Neill.
The Rundown: China’s UBTech is claiming a commercial breakthrough in the humanoid race: $113M in orders and 500 industrial humanoids slated for delivery in 2025, with production capacity already exceeding 1K units annually.
The details:
The Shenzhen-based company reports over $113M in domestic pre-orders and plans to ship 500+ humanoids in 2025.UBTech released a short video showcasing what it calls the “world’s first mass delivery of humanoid robots,” featuring sleek rows of Walker S2 units.The viral lineup video quickly drew heat from Figure CEO Brett Adcock, who labeled it CGI, sparking some online debate.Walker S2’s hot-swap battery system enables quick changeovers, designed to sustain round-the-clock factory shifts.
Why it matters:
UBTech targets 5K Walker shipments next year as it preps to push into the consumer market with a $20K home robot to rival Tesla’s Optimus, Figure 03, and 1X’s NEO. Of course, Adcock’s CGI accusation highlights lingering skepticism around production claims in the heated humanoid race.
In this reaction video, I break down HUD Secretary Scott Turner’s latest video — and the dishonesty driving a dangerous policy shift that will make homelessness worse across the country. This isn’t an announcement. It’s political messaging designed to justify cutting what works and replacing it with ideology, exclusion, and punishment. And the consequences will be devastating. Homelessness didn’t suddenly rise under Biden. It was already increasing during Trump’s first term because our housing affordability crisis keeps getting worse. For every $100 increase in median rent, homelessness increases by 9 percent. More than 19,000 people fall into homelessness every single week. That is the real crisis. Turner also knows HUD’s own research shows Housing First dramatically reduces homelessness — up to an 88 percent reduction in homelessness and 41 percent better housing stability compared to treatment-first programs. Housing First isn’t a single program. It’s an evidence-based philosophy that says: house people first, then provide services. It hasn’t failed. We failed to scale it. Instead of building on what works, this policy shift cuts permanent supportive housing and makes it harder for organizations that serve LGBTQ homeless youth to get funding. That’s cruelty, not Christianity. It also pushes communities toward criminalization, which is the most expensive and least effective response we have. This is a crisis. 170,000 formerly homeless people who are currently in housing will be thrown back out to the streets. Organizations that help vulnerable people will no longer get funding, leaving hurting people outside to die. As the affordable housing crisis creates more homelessness, this policy shift by HUD will have a catastrophic negative effect, significantly increasing homeless numbers across the country. Here’s more: Homeless Veteran Gets an Apartment: HOUSING FIRST WORKS • Homeless Veteran Gets an Apartment: HOUSIN… Speaking to the Faith Community About Housing First: Rescue Missions of the Future https://invisiblepeople.tv/speaking-t… Can We End Homelessness? Hennepin County Shows How • Can We End Homelessness? Hennepin County S… Fined. Arrested. Still Nowhere to Live. • Fined. Arrested. Still Nowhere to Live. Prison, Homelessness, or Housing? The Choice That Changes Everything • Prison, Homelessness, or Housing? The Choi… Housing First Didn’t Fail. We Did. • Housing First Didn’t Fail. We Did. Internment Camps for Homeless People — Disguised as ‘Help’ • Internment Camps for Homeless People — Dis… ================================== Subscribe here: https://www.youtube.com/c/invisiblepe… Invisible People’s website: http://invisiblepeople.tv
The prepared remarks of my Oxford Union debate held on November 13, 2025, on the proposition that “Israel is a greater threat to regional stability than the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Mr. President, I confess that I hesitated before agreeing to debate this evening. To do so risks dignifying a proposition so disconnected from basic facts that it verges on the satirical: that Israel, of all states, poses a greater threat to regional stability than the Islamic Republic of Iran.
But we now live in an age where people will believe almost anything. Nearly one in four people in thie country aged 18 to 34 believe that the 7/7 terrorist attacks were “probably a hoax.” And here in this Oxford Union, we saw just three weeks ago that no less than 501 members believe it is right to vote in support of the incoming president, after he had publicly celebrated the killing of Charlie Kirk. So I decided it was necessary to attend and lay out a few essential facts proving that tonight’s proposition is not merely wrong, but the inversion of reality.
Regional stability is measured by who starts wars, not by who stops them. Israel not arm terror proxies in five Arab countries; Iran does. The entire Middle East knows this, which is why Arab states quietly depend on Israel for their own survival. Fact: The moderate Sunni Arab countries are part of a strategic alliance with Israel, going back decades. Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. Jordan did so in 1994. In 2020, under the historic Abraham Accords, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan signed peace and normalization agreements with Israel.
The accords recognize that the Arab and Jewish peoples are descendants of a common ancestor, Abraham — indigenous to the region — and they articulate a vision of advancing a culture of peace, security and prosperity. Fact: Saudi Arabia, custodian of the two holy mosques, has also developed a significant rappochement with Israel.
Indeed, captured minutes of Hamas leadership meetings show that this was a key factor in their decision to invade Israel and launch the war and massacre on October 7, 2023. Hamas wrote: “There is no doubt that the Saudi-Zionist normalization agreement is progressing significantly.” So they decided on “an extraordinary action” to try and torpedo it. Fact: this regional alliance between Israel and the moderate Arab countries was resilient enough to survive the war of the past two years.
Last year, neighboring Egypt and Jordan imported a record amount of natural gas from Israel. Israel provides parched Jordan with 100 million cubic meters a year. How is Israel “a threat to regional stability”? The opposite is true. One of the most powerful illustrations of this regional alliance came last year, on April 13, 2024, when the Islamic regime in Iran launched an unprecedented attack on the people of Israel — with 170 drones, over 30 cruise missiles, and more than 120 ballistic missiles. Those who helped shoot down the incoming weapons included the air forces of the US, the UK, France, and Jordan, while Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates contributed intelligence, including radar tracking information. This wasn’t a one-off.
When Iran attacked Israel again in June 2025, Jordan shot down Iranian missiles and drones crossing overhead, and Saudi Arabia reportedly allowed Israel to use its airspace to do so.The fact that Sunni Arab states provided a combination of air force interceptions, radar and intelligence is a a real-world vote on tonight’s motion. They know that for their people, Israel is a partner in survival; and the Islamic Regime in Iran is an existential threat. You don’t intercept missiles heading toward a ‘threat to regional stability’. You intercept missiles from one.
The Islamic Republic of Iran Now let us address the true driver of instability: the Islamic Regime in Iran. Revolutionary Jihad is their raison d’etre. Compare and contrast. Israel, at the very moment of its birth on May 14, 1948, in its Declaration of Independence, reached out to its neighbors with a simple message: “We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace.” With the Islamic Regime in Iran, it was the exact opposite. On the first anniversary of his regime, February 11, 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini declared: “We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry, ‘There is no God but Allah’ resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle.” And that is what they do — in the region and beyond. Iran, through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, exports terrorism and war.
Look at Yemen. They armed and trained the Houthis, a group whose slogan is “Death to America, Death to Israel, Damn the Jews.” The Houthis destroyed Yemen: collapsing state institutions, crippling hospitals and basic services, diverting aid, and deepening famine and economic freefall. Backed by Iran, they turned the country into a battlefield for regional power struggles. Their own people are starving, yet unprovoked, from a thousand miles away, the Houthis have used Yemen’s resources to attack Israeli cities with more than 400 ballistic missiles and drones. All sponsored by Iran. Is this stability?
Look at Lebanon. Iran’s proxy Hezbollah hollowed out every institution that once made the country function, turning in into a failed state. They built an Iranian-funded parallel military stronger than the Lebanese army, seized control of border crossings and ports, and converted entire regions into fortified enclaves beyond the reach of the state. They assassinated critics, toppled governments that tried to assert sovereignty, and dragged Lebanon into wars its people never chose. Hezbollah’s capture of the economy—fuel smuggling, customs evasion, protection rackets—bled the treasury dry and helped trigger Lebanon’s financial collapse.
Its veto power over politics turned parliament into paralysis. Its domination of security services allowed corruption and impunity to flourish. And by launching attacks on Israel from civilian neighborhoods, it ensured that Lebanon would live permanently on the brink of war, scaring off investment, tourism, and any hope of recovery. In short: Hezbollah replaced the Lebanese state with an Iranian proxy empire, and the result was national ruin.
Look at Syria. When Syrians protested peacefully in 2011, the Assad regime was on the brink of collapse. Iran intervened to save its client. It deployed IRGC commanders, imported thousands of Shia militiamen from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, and oversaw sectarian cleansing in key corridors linking Damascus to the coast. Tehran funded and directed a campaign of mass atrocities — from starvation sieges to chemical attacks — that killed hundreds of thousands, and displaced millions, half the country. It entrenched militias across Syrian territory, built missile factories on Syrian soil, and used the country as a forward base to attack Israel and threaten Jordan. Iran did not stabilize Syria; it shattered it.
Look at Iraq. Iran filled the post-Saddam vacuum by building militias stronger than the state. Through the IRGC and its Popular Mobilization Forces, Tehran created armed factions that answer to Iran, not Baghdad. They seized border crossings, looted state revenues, and assassinated activists who demanded Iraqi sovereignty. These militias toppled governments, paralyzed parliament, and turned Iraq into a launchpad for Iranian rocket and drone attacks. Iran didn’t stabilize Iraq; it captured it, replacing national institutions with a network of loyalist armed groups.
Look at Gaza.Iran transformed Hamas into a mini-army. Tehran funded rockets, tunnels, and drone programs, while Hamas diverted aid from civilians to weapons. Instead of building a future for Palestinians, Hamas — with Iranian training — built an underground fortress beneath homes, hospitals, and schools. The result was October 7th: the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Gaza is beautiful beachfront property. It could have been prosperous. But Iran made it a military outpost for its war on Israel, condemning Palestinians to endless conflict. And let’s look worldwide. In Australia, the Iranian regime hired criminals to terrorize the Jewish community, firebombing a synagogue, and burning a kosher café, prompting Australia to break its relations with Iran. In Argentina, Iran and Hezbollah bombed the Jewish community building in Buenos Aires, murdering 85 people and injuring over 300.
The regime targets dissidents worldwide. Here in the UK, on March 29th, 2024, assailants hired by Iran stabbed journalist Pouria Zeraati outside his London residence. Earlier this week, I was at the World Liberty Congress with my friend Masih Alinejad, who now lives in New York. The Islamic regime tried to kidnap or kill her three times. They sent a hitman with an AK-47 to her home in New York. In the Netherlands, the regime assassinated Iranian dissidents: Ali Motamed in 2015, and two years later, Ahmad Nissi. Dutch, Swedish, French and UK Intelligence have all confirmed that Iran is hiring criminal gangs to target dissidents in Europe. Assassinating dissidents worldwide is why Iran is a terrorist regime. That is why the IRGC is designated as a terrorist organization by Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Ecuador, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Sweden and the United States.
My opponent Ataollah Mohajerani was complicit with Iranian regime crimes Mr. President, in this regard, I would be remiss not to mention that a human rights lawyer from this university, from Oxford, has filed a complaint and legal dossier with the police against my opponent in this debate, Mr. Ataollah Mohajerani, for his role in the assassination of disdidents. As described in The Guardian, on January 30, 2023, the founder of the Oxford University Public Interest Law program, Kaveh Moussavi, has alleged complicity by Mr. Mohajerani, who was a senior Iranian regime official between 1989 and 1997, “during a period when hundreds of assassinations of dissidents in Europe were attempted and committed on the orders of the Iranian regime.” Moreover, the complaint points to Mr. Mohajerani’s 1989 book, “A Critique of the Satanic Verses Conspiracy,” in which he endorses and justifies the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1999 against the famed novelist Salman Rushdie, who was stabbed 15 times in 2022 — as a result, presumably, of this Fatwa. And in the book, Mr. Mohajani writes in his book that Rushdie is, “an absolute apostate, and the punishment of an apostate is execution.” And so, Mr. Mohajarani, tonight you say you stand for regional stability, but you have once blessed the idea that an author, a citizen of this country, should be killed for writing a book. So please tell this house: Do you still believe that writers deserve death, or will you finally retract and renounce your support for that Fatwa? [Though he spoke after, Ataollah Mohajerani never answered the question.]
Stability includes women’s rights But stability isn’t just military or geopolitical. In the words of the British Department for International Development: “Open, inclusive societies reduce the risk of the spread of instability.” Indeed, a society is stable where a woman can walk on the street without being attacked for defending her rights. In Israel, women have served as pilots, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, opposition leader, and Prime Minister. They are visible and vocal in public life — leading companies, commanding army units, shaping law and policy, and freely expressing their opinions in the press and on the streets, in the tens and even hundreds of thousands. By contrast, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, women get banned from sports stadiums, imprisoned for singing in public, or beaten to death for wearing improper Hijab, like Jinna Mahsa Amini. In Iran, women are made punished simply for wanting to be seen, heard, or free. And make no mistake. What happens in Iran doesn’t stay in Iran. They export the repression. In Yemen, the Iran-backed Houthis have banned women from traveling without a male guardian. Female aid workers can’t even move freely to deliver desperately-needed humanitarian assistance. In Lebanon, in July 2023, the leader of Iran-backed Hezbollah called to kill gays and lesbians, sparking terror among LGBT people.
Rights for minorities Stability for a society means also means basic human rights for minorities. In Israel, Arabs vote in the only free and fair elections in the entire Middle East. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, ethnic minorities are subject to discrimination, including Ahwazi Arabs, Azeris, Baluchis, Kurds and Turks. And the regime targets religious minorities, including Christians — particularly those who converted from Islam — as well as Sufi Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Gonabadi Dervishes, Jews, Yarsanis, Zoroastrians, and, in particular, Baha’is, who face systemic persecution, including mass arrest and lengthy prison sentences. Even the UN, which is often soft on Iran, has recognized these gross and systematic abuses. On December 17th, In Resolution 79/183, the UN condemned the Islamic Republic of Iran for restrictions on freedom of thought and religion, attacks on places of worship and burial, and harassment, intimidation, persecution, arbitrary arrest, detention of persons belonging to these minorities – as well as its incitement to hatred leading to violence — in violation of Iran’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Right to protest Stability for a society also means the right to protest. In Israel, it’s a national pastime to lambaste the government. In Tel Aviv, Saturday-evening protests have often drawn tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of demonstrators. In Iran, they beat, blind, rape, torture and kill women who protest. During the Woman Life Freedom protests of 2022, the regime arrested 20,000 people, across 130 cities. At least 551 people—including dozens of children—were killed. For protesting.
Conclusion In the final analysis, Mr. President, the greatest threat to regional stability is a regime that murders its own people, hunts its critics across Europe and America, arms terror proxie, and exports terror on four continents. The Islamic Regime in Iran has killed hundreds of thousands in Syria, shattered Yemen through the Houthis, bankrupted Lebanon through Hezbollah, hijacked Iraq through militias, and turned Gaza into a launching pad for the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. At home, they shoots women in the streets, blind teenagers, torture dissidents, and execute protesters. Abroad, they sends terrorists and assassins to murder innocents in New York, London, and Buenos Aires. This is not a government seeking stability; it is a revolutionary engine of hate, terror, and chaos. Israel, by contrast, is the firewall that prevents Iran’s imperial project from engulfing the region. To claim Israel is the greater threat to stability is not merely wrong — it is an inversion of reality itself.
Summary: New research shows that depression beginning before age 25 has a much stronger hereditary component than depression that emerges later in life. By analyzing genetic data from over 150,000 people with depression, researchers identified distinct genetic regions linked specifically to early-onset cases.
Individuals with high genetic risk for early-onset depression were twice as likely to attempt suicide within a decade. The findings highlight a critical window for early intervention and suggest that genetics could eventually guide personalized suicide-prevention strategies.
Key Facts
Early Genetic Risk: Depression before age 25 shows stronger genetic influence than late-onset cases.
Higher Suicide Probability: One in four individuals with high early-onset genetic risk attempted suicide within 10 years.
Distinct Gene Regions:Twelve genetic regions were linked to early-onset depression, compared with two for late-onset cases.
Source: Karolinska Institute
Depression in young adulthood has a stronger hereditary component and is associated with a higher risk of suicide attempts than depression that begins later in life, according to a new study published in Nature Genetics by researchers at Karolinska Institutet, among others.
“We hope that genetic information will be able to help healthcare professionals identify people at high risk of suicide, who may need more support and closer follow-up,” says Lu Yi, senior researcher at the Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, and one of the study’s corresponding authors.
Depression is a common mental illness that can affect people at different stages of life. The new study shows that depression that begins before the age of 25 has a stronger hereditary component than depression that begins late in life.
Major genetic differences
The study, based on medical records and genetic data from over 150,000 people with depression and 360,000 controls in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Estonia, compared genetics and risk of suicide attempts in people who had their first depression before the age of 25 (early onset) and those diagnosed after the age of 50 (late onset).
The genetic differences between the groups were large. The researchers identified twelve genetic regions that were linked to early onset and two regions that were linked to late onset.
One in four people with a high genetic risk of early-onset depression attempted suicide within ten years of diagnosis, which was about twice as many as people with a low genetic risk.
“We show that early-onset depression has partly different genetic causes than depression that affects older individuals and that the risk of suicide attempts is increased,” says Lu Yi.
“This is an important step towards precision medicine in psychiatry, where treatment and preventive measures are tailored to each individual.”
Suicide prevention in healthcare
The researchers now plan to investigate how the genetic differences are related to brain development, stress and life experiences, and whether genetic risk profiles can be used in suicide prevention in healthcare.
The study is a collaboration between Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, the University of Oslo, Norway, Copenhagen University Hospital and Roskilde University in Denmark, the University of Tartu in Estonia and the Nordic research network TRYGGVE.
Funding: It has been funded by, among others, the European Research Council (ERC) and the US National Institute of Mental Health. Some of the authors have collaborations with pharmaceutical companies, but none that are related to the current study. See the scientific article for more information on potential conflicts of interest.
Key Questions Answered:
Q: What did researchers discover about early-onset depression?
A: Depression beginning before age 25 has stronger genetic influences and carries a higher risk of suicide attempts than depression occurring later in life.
Q: How does genetic risk relate to suicide attempts?
A: Individuals with a high genetic risk for early-onset depression were twice as likely to attempt suicide within 10 years compared to those with low genetic risk.
Q: Why does this study matter for treatment?
A: The findings support precision psychiatry—suggesting genetic profiling may help clinicians identify high-risk individuals who need intensified monitoring and prevention.
Editorial Notes: – This article was written by a Neuroscience News editor. – Journal paper reviewed in full. – Additional context added by our staff.
About this genetics and mental health research news
Author: Press Office Source: Karolinska Institute Contact: Press Office – Karolinska Institute Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Genome-wide association analyses identify distinct genetics architectures for early-onset and late- onset depression
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common and heterogeneous disorder of complex etiology.
Studying more homogeneous groups stratified according to clinical characteristics, such as age of onset, can improve the identification of the underlying genetic causes and lead to more targeted treatment strategies.
We leveraged Nordic biobanks with longitudinal health registries to investigate differences in the genetic architectures of early-onset (eoMDD; n = 46,708 cases) and late-onset (loMDD; n = 37,168 cases) MDD.
We identified 12 genomic loci for eoMDD and two for loMDD. Overall, the two MDD subtypes correlated moderately (genetic correlation, rg = 0.58) and differed in their genetic correlations with related traits.
These findings suggest that eoMDD and loMDD have partially distinct genetic signatures, with a specific developmental brain signature for eoMDD.
Importantly, we demonstrate that polygenic risk scores (PRS) for eoMDD predict suicide attempts within the first 10 years after the initial diagnosis: the absolute risk for suicide attempt was 26% in the top PRS decile, compared to 12% and 20% in the bottom decile and the intermediate group, respectively.
Taken together, our findings can inform precision psychiatry approaches for MDD.
Join our Newsletter
I agree to have my personal information transferred to AWeber for Neuroscience Newsletter ( more information )
Sign up to receive our recent neuroscience headlines and summaries sent to your email once a day, totally free.