The ever-evolving Latino vote is rapidly shifting away from Trump and Republicans

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Matt A. Barreto, Professor of Political Science, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs

In 2024, Trump and other Republicans scored notable gains in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, along with other heavily Hispanic areas. Getty Images/Michael Gonzalez

In 2024, Donald Trump dramatically improved his performance among nearly all groups of voters from four years earlier. Trump’s growth among Hispanic voters was especially notable, increasing by more than 10 points from 2020 to 2024, at least according to exit polls.

This led to a considerable amount of commentary speculating that Hispanic voters, historically more supportive of Democrats, might continue shifting toward the GOP.

News reports suggesting Latinos were critical to Trump’s 2024 victory were, in our view, overblown. Even if Latinos had not shifted, Trump still would have won in 2024.

Yet there is no question that over the past three election cycles, Latino voters – Latino men under 40, in particular – have shifted right. That change has benefited GOP candidates, even as the majority of Latinos still voted for Democrats.

However, evidence from general elections in 2025 in places such as New Jersey, New York and Virginia, as well as special elections in 2026, suggest an abrupt correction is underway, with some of the Latino voters who backed Trump now swinging back to the Democrats.

As political scientists and pollsters who study Hispanic voting trends, we are concerned with the question of whether these latest movements are real or simply a function of fluctuating Latino Democratic turnout rates. In other words, are Latinos broadly changing their votes back to Democrats, or are Latinos who remained loyal to the Democrats now more angry and fired up?

Survey and election data suggest it’s a bit of both. So what does this portend for the future of American politics?

Latino voting trends

The history of the Latino vote nationwide had for decades been one of long-term stability. Historically, Democrats enjoyed an approximate 65% to 35% advantage over Republicans.

That advantage shrank marginally after Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, providing a path to citizenship for millions. But the more familiar two-thirds advantage for the Democratic Party returned following passage of Proposition 187, a 1994 anti-immigrant initiative in California that ultimately mobilized Latinos against Republicans.

A man wearing a poncho and a mask that says 'no justice, no peace' bangs on a drum during a protest.
Trump’s immigration policies have triggered widespread protests, including among Latinos.
AP Photo/Eric Gay

Another effort at GOP outreach to Hispanic voters culminated in President George W. Bush taking approximately 40% of the Latino vote in 2004. That growth, however, soon eroded in the wake of anti-immigrant legislation passed by the Republican-controlled House in 2005 and 2006.

The successful campaigns of Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, as well as Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2016 campaign against Trump, saw Democrats reaping a relatively high level of Latino support, peaking at a 3-to-1 advantage in 2012.

That made Trump’s improvements among Latinos in 2020 and 2024 feel, for some, particularly unexpected. He lodged notable breakthroughs in parts of Florida, where he carried Miami-Dade County, and Texas, where he flipped the historically Democratic Rio Grande Valley.

Some Latinos question whether Democrats have delivered

It should not have been such a surprise. There has been a history of sizable shares of Latinos supporting Republican candidates. For instance, both former President George W. Bush and his brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, performed well with Latinos in Texas and Florida.

For two decades, Democrats have campaigned among Latinos on the promise of comprehensive immigration reform and an economic policy that would level the playing field, including raising the federal minimum wage, providing universal pre-K education and promoting affordable housing.

Many Latinos feel they are still waiting for these Democratic policies to be enacted, let alone improve their lives.

Democratic trifectas in 2009-10 and 2021-22 – when the party held both chambers of Congress, along with the presidency – failed to produce meaningful movement on immigration policy. Many Latinos felt their daily lives had not improved, as they faced high costs of living, expensive housing markets and rising health care costs. While House Democrats did pass numerous bills to address these topics, Senate moderates proved difficult to persuade.

A female member of Congress in a black-and-white polka dotted jackets stands at a lectern and speaks during a news conference.
Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, including Arizona Democrat Adelita Grijalva, have criticized Trump’s immigration stance.
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Given these shortcomings, running on the message that “the GOP are bad guys” only gets Democrats so far. In 2024, surveys and focus groups of Hispanic voters made it clear that not everyone was convinced by this characterization. The frustrations of working-class families during the Biden administration were real, whereas fears of mass deportations and other social chaos that a second Trump term might portend were, at that point, conjecture.

The Trump campaign specifically promised widespread action against immigrants, but many of our Latino focus group participants felt this was bluster. They believed that Trump’s actions would be targeted against blatant criminals and that his policies would not affect their families and friends.

They did not believe the worst-case scenarios presented by Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democrats during the campaign. Despite often not liking Trump, his economic promises felt good during the 2024 affordability crisis.

Latinos shifting back left?

Many Latinos are now quite upset with Trump. The 2025 gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia point to dramatic 25-point changes in the Latino vote in the Democrats’ direction, compared with Trump’s 2024 performance.

In December 2025, the first Democrat was elected mayor of Miami since 1997, with Latino support. A Democrat won a heavily Republican state legislative district in Texas in February 2026 with an estimated 79% of the Latino vote. Most recently, Latino voter turnout surged to record levels in the March Democratic primary in Texas.

Majorities of Latino voters believe that their economic fortunes have declined since Trump returned to the White House. Moreover, they expect the situation to worsen over the next year. In March 2026, The Economist reported that Trump’s support among Latinos had fallen to 22%.

In a bipartisan poll by UnidosUS released in November 2025, only 14% of Latino voters said their lives were better after one year under Trump, while 39% said they had gotten worse. Looking ahead, 50% expected things to get worse still in 2026, while only 20% were optimistic about their economic future. Two-thirds of Latino voters felt that Trump and the Republicans were not focusing enough on improving the economy for people like them.

What’s more, mass deportations have happened under the second Trump administration. The vast majority of those detained for deportation, including those who have died, had no criminal record.

Latinos are overwhelmingly opposed to federal troops in U.S. cities, according to our polling; 41% fear legal residents and U.S. citizens getting caught up in enforcement actions. The No. 1 immigration concern for Latino voters remains a path to citizenship for Dreamers – the undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children – and for immigrants who have worked and paid taxes in the country for more than 20 years but lack formal status.

Among Latinos who actually voted for Trump, many would not do so again. Our poll suggests that 22% of Latinos who voted for Trump in 2024 would not vote for him again. By contrast, Democrats retain support from 93% of their 2024 Latino voters.

The long-term effects of the Trump presidency on the Latino electorate are difficult to predict, but for now party preferences have shifted firmly back toward the Democrats. Among voters in the UnidosUS poll, 55% said they felt the Democrats “care a great deal” about Latinos, compared with 29% saying they felt that way about the GOP. At the same time, 33% of Latino voters see the GOP as “hostile,” compared with just 7% who believe this about the Democrats.

If the recent leftward shift is sustained, or the earlier shift to the right was illusory, the effects on the politics of 2026 could be large, potentially putting control of Congress in the hands of Latino voters. There are 46 House districts where the number of registered voters who are Latino exceeds the total margin of victory for those seats in 2024, with 23 currently held by Republicans and 23 currently held by Democrats.

Latino voters need to believe that politicians truly care about their concerns and will work to implement a plan to create equal opportunities for the nation’s largest minority group to achieve the American dream. We believe the candidates able to make that pitch convincingly will be the most successful.

The Conversation

Matt A. Barreto is principal and co-founder of the polling firm BSP Research. BSP Research has conducted polling for non-profit and advocacy organizations, businesses, and candidates. Barreto has, in the past, directly consulted with Democratic candidates for House, Senate and the presidency.

Gary M. Segura is principal and co-founder of the polling firm BSP Research. BSP Research has conducted polling for non-profit and advocacy organizations, businesses, and candidates. Segura has, in the past, directly consulted with Democratic candidates for House, Senate and the presidency.

ref. The ever-evolving Latino vote is rapidly shifting away from Trump and Republicans – https://theconversation.com/the-ever-evolving-latino-vote-is-rapidly-shifting-away-from-trump-and-republicans-277335

Can you survive inside a tornado? This scientist did by accident – he’s lucky to be alive

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Perry Samson, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Michigan

Tornadoes can be erratic and extremely dangerous. Brent Koops/NOAA Weather in Focus Photo Contest 2015, CC BY

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com.


Can a person survive inside a tornado? – Sophia, age 14, Greencastle, Indiana


I have seen the center of a monster. Most people describe the sound of a tornado as like a freight train, but up close, it’s more like a thousand screaming jet engines. I am one of the few people on Earth who has driven into a tornado and lived to tell the tale.

While it might sound like a scene from a Hollywood blockbuster involving a high-tech armored truck, my experience was much more dangerous and terrifying.

I am an atmospheric scientist who studies tornadoes, but I am only alive today because of split-second decisions and a massive amount of dumb luck. Believe me, I do not want to ever be in that situation again.

A vehicle drives down a rural road, away from a large tornado.
Tornadoes vary in size and intensity.
Hank Schyma, used with permission

The day the sky broke

It started in northwest Kansas, where I was studying supercell thunderstorms – the kind that produce tornadoes – with a team of students from the University of Michigan.

We were positioned under a thunderstorm that was so dark, we had to turn on our vehicles’ headlights in the middle of the day. Suddenly, a tornado formed and began charging directly toward us.

The storm the author survived, filmed by students who were in nearby vehicles at the time.

The students were in other vehicles and got away, but my car was quickly swallowed by a cloud of flying debris so thick that I couldn’t even see my own hood.

With my options disappearing, I made a desperate move: I turned the car directly into the wind, hoping the vehicle’s aerodynamics would keep us pinned to the ground rather than being flipped like a toy.

The physics of fear

When you’re inside a tornado’s vortex, your body experiences things the news cameras can’t capture:

  • The pressure change: A tornado is a localized area of rapidly changing pressure. Your ears don’t just “pop” – they ache, as if your head is being squeezed by giant hands.

  • The solid wind: We measured wind speeds of almost 150 mph (241 kph) nearby, but inside the vortex, they were likely much higher. At those speeds, air hits you with the force of a solid object.

  • The soup of darkness: In movies, the “eye” is a clear space. In reality, it’s a debris ball – a brownish-black soup of pulverized soil, trees and buildings. It was so dark that my camera couldn’t even register a picture.

A tornado tears apart a building, sending a cloud of fast-moving debris into the air.
A tornado’s winds can reach 300 mph (482 kph). Part of the danger is all the debris blowing around at fast speeds.
Hank Schyma, used with permission

As debris slammed into my windshield, I was terrified I’d be crushed by flying materials – tornadoes can pick up fences, wood and metal from buildings, tree branches, even cows. Textbook advice says to get into a ditch so you’re lying flat and might be more protected from flying debris. But the wind was so violent, I couldn’t even open the car door. I just stayed low and prayed.

The making of a monster

How does this severe of a storm even happen? It takes a perfect, violent recipe of atmospheric ingredients:

  • Fuel: A tornado needs warm, muggy air (water vapor) near the ground with dry air above it. This creates the potential for rising air, but only if the atmosphere is unstable enough to overcome “the cap.”

  • The cap: A thin “inversion” layer of stable air acts like a lid on that warm moist air, bottling it up until the moist air punches through.

  • The dry line: The dry line is where warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico and dry air from the west meet. The advancing hot, dry air is actually heavier than muggy air, and this dry air pushes the moist air upward, disrupting the cap.

  • Wind shear: Surface winds from the south and upper winds from the west create a horizontal rolling motion in the atmosphere. When the air is pushed upward, that rotation becomes vertical, creating what’s known as a mesocyclone.

  • The jet stream: About 5 to 7 miles (8 to 11 kilometers) up, the jet stream is a fast-moving river of air. Disturbances within it can create areas that pull air upward from below and lower surface pressure.

How wind shear makes the winds roll and form tornadoes. NOAA.

Together, these ingredients can create the powerful, rotating vortex that you know as a tornado.

These storms can have winds up to 300 mph (482 kph) and leave a long path of destruction, sometimes more than a mile (1.6 kilometers) wide. They can stay on the ground for seconds or many minutes, tearing apart buildings and trees in their path. Where they will travel is hard to predict, so getting to safety should be a priority.

The monster’s lesson

When the storm passed, the silence was jarring. My rental car was mired in mud, the antenna was bent in half, and bits of straw were embedded in every single seam of the car’s body.

Tornadoes are extremely dangerous. Sixty-one people were killed by tornadoes in the U.S. in 2025, and many more were injured by flying debris. Make sure you know what to do when a tornado alert sounds – follow the alert’s advice and get to safety immediately.

Four people stand beside a truck with the NOAA logo.
Scientists working with the National Severe Storms Lab watch a thunderstorm’s evolution in Kansas.
Mike Coniglio, NOAA NSSL/VORTEX II, CC BY

When scientists chase storms, they are not trying to experience tornadoes – they are trying to measure the small-scale processes inside storms that cannot be observed in other ways. Many of the key processes that produce tornadoes occur within a few hundred meters of the ground and evolve over minutes, which means radars, satellites and weather stations often miss them.

Seeing a tornado and the damage it causes is a powerful reminder that people are not in control of everything. It serves as a warning to be wise and ready for anything. Sophisticated research using drones and radar is the smart way to study these monsters – seeing them from the inside is definitely not.

Willa Connolly, a student at Tappan Middle School in Ann Arbor, Michigan, contributed to this article.

The Conversation

Perry Samson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Can you survive inside a tornado? This scientist did by accident – he’s lucky to be alive – https://theconversation.com/can-you-survive-inside-a-tornado-this-scientist-did-by-accident-hes-lucky-to-be-alive-278648

Immigrant kids can attend school regardless of citizenship – some states are challenging this standard

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By William McCorkle, Associate Professor of Education, College of Charleston

An undocumented mother walks her 6-year-old daughter to school in Danbury, Conn., in October 2025, shortly before the family self-deported. John Moore/Getty Images

All immigrants, regardless of their citizenship status, have the right to attend a public K-12 school in the United States. Schools cannot collect students’ immigration status when they enroll. This has been the case since 1982, when the Supreme Court ruled against Texas in the case of Plyler v. Doe.

Republican legislators in several states, including Tennessee, Oklahoma and Ohio, are trying to pass legislation that challenges the Plyler decision. These bills would make it harder, if not impossible, for immigrant children to attend public school.

In the U.S., there are approximately 1.5 million children under the age of 18 who are undocumented immigrants, meaning that they live in the country without legal authorization.

There are likely 600,000 to 850,000 undocumented students enrolled in K-12 schools.

Two young girls stand near a fence outside of a brick building. They're wearing jackets and hoods and hats that cover their faces as they look away from the camera and toward the building.
Two undocumented children pause outside a school in Lynn, Mass., in February 2025.
Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Opposition to Plyler

In 1975, Texas passed legislation that allowed school districts to either charge undocumented students to attend public school or not let them enroll at all.

Seven years later, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas’ law violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The court determined that someone’s immigration status “does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents.”

For the past 44 years, this ruling has ensured that no state can ban undocumented students from attending a public K-12 school, charge them extra fees or discriminate against them in any other way because of their immigration status.

A few times over the past few decades, some states have unsuccessfully tried to make it harder for immigrant children to attend school.

In 1994, California voters passed Proposition 187, a ballot initiative that denied undocumented people the right to receive public services, including a public education. The proposition also required schools to document students’ immigration status.

A federal judge ruled in 1998 that the controversial proposition was unconstitutional.

In 2011, Alabama passed legislation that required K-12 public schools to collect students’ immigration status.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that Alabama’s legislation was illegal. Alabama schools, like all other schools, are not allowed to ask students about their immigration status, as it could be a means of discrimination or intimidation.

A new wave of legislation

The conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation issued a policy document in February 2026 that encouraged all states to challenge the Plyler v. Doe ruling.

Heritage argued that “illegal aliens should not be eligible for federal, state, or local government benefits, including through their children.” It wrote that giving undocumented immigrants these benefits “takes resources from American citizens and lawful immigrants.”

Heritage also published sample legislation that challenges the Plyler ruling and which state legislators could follow when drafting a new bill.

In 2025, at least five states considered legislation that would make it harder for undocumented students to attend K-12 school. None of those measures have become official policy, though some are still being debated in legislatures.

The Tennessee Senate passed a bill in 2025 that allowed school districts to ban undocumented students. In March 2026, the state’s House of Representatives passed a similar, watered-down version of the legislation. This bill would require schools to check students’ immigration status. The two government chambers are now working to determine next steps on the measure.

In 2025, Ohio legislators introduced a bill that wouldn’t ban immigrants from attending school, but it would require schools to report students’ immigration status to the state. The state’s House Government Oversight Committee is considering the measure.

In January 2025, the Oklahoma Board of Education passed a resolution that would require parents to show their child’s citizenship status before enrolling in school. Oklahoma’s House of Representatives blocked the resolution four months later.

Similarly, Republican legislators in Idaho introduced a bill in February 2026 that would require public K-12 schools to check students’ immigration status. The state’s House Education Committee is currently considering the bill.

A bill was also introduced in New Jersey in January 2025 that would charge undocumented students to study at a K-12 school, but the bill did not gain traction.

In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott has talked about challenging the Plyler ruling, as far back as 2022. The state is not currently considering any specific legislation on the issue.

But in March 2026, Mandy Drogin, a campaign director with the conservative think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation, spoke out against Plyler in a U.S. Congressional hearing.

“If states are required to educate illegal immigrant students, they must be allowed to identify the student population’s status to fully understand and address the adverse effects of Plyler v. Doe,” Drogin said.

A patchwork higher education landscape

The Plyler decision focused on K-12 schools, not colleges and universities. Undocumented students in some states already face college enrollment and tuition restrictions, particularly when it comes to state schools.

Twenty-five states, including Florida and Texas, require undocumented students to pay higher out-of-state tuition fees for state schools, even if they are Florida residents.

Alabama and South Carolina ban undocumented students from attending state colleges and universities. Undocumented students in Georgia cannot attend certain top public universities, including the University of Georgia and Georgia Tech.

These policies all make it harder for undocumented students to receive a college degree. But the stakes of state legislation that would create new hurdles for immigrant children to attend elementary and secondary school would arguably be much higher.

A red sign on a metal pole says, 'This classroom is a safe space for immigrants.'
A teachers union sign in support of immigrant students is posted at Sepulveda Middle School in Los Angeles in August 2025.
Sarah Reingewirtz/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News via Getty Images

A fragile right

If undocumented students are not offered a free public education, then students who are applying for asylum, or students whose parents are undocumented, could find that this standard is no longer a guarantee for them as well.

This issue has not received a great deal of media attention, perhaps because states have not yet succeeded in passing any of this legislation.

As an education professor, I believe that any of these state measures, if turned into law, would have significant effects on immigrant families – and on American education more broadly.

It would mean that many young people, including the many who are rapidly losing their legal immigration status under the Trump administration, would no longer be able to receive an education in this country and try to reach their full potential. They also would have less opportunities to contribute to our society.

The universal right to public education in the U.S. has long been taken for granted – but this right, like others, might be more fragile than it seems.

The Conversation

William McCorkle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Immigrant kids can attend school regardless of citizenship – some states are challenging this standard – https://theconversation.com/immigrant-kids-can-attend-school-regardless-of-citizenship-some-states-are-challenging-this-standard-278766

For the nearly 1 in 4 US adults with chronic pain, employers’ expectations of a healthy body can lead to shame

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Beth Schinoff, Assistant Professor of Management, University of Delaware

Chronic pain afflicts white-collar and blue-collar workers alike. ilkercelik/E+ via Getty Images

Your back pain gets worse as you sit through a long meeting. Your wrist pain flares when you’re typing furiously to meet a tight deadline. During a busy shift at the grocery store, you feel a migraine coming on.

If that sounds familiar, you’ve got plenty of company. About 1 in 4 U.S. adults suffer from chronic pain. The share who say they are in chronic pain either on most days or every day in the past three months is growing: It jumped by nearly 4 percentage points to 23% of U.S. adults in 2023, up from 19% in 2019.

Chronic pain is not only hard on workers trying to do their jobs, but it also takes a toll on employers and the economy as a whole by costing an estimated US$722 billion in lost productivity each year.

As management scholars who study how people feel at work, we wanted to understand why chronic pain so often makes it impossible for employees to do their work – and even to keep their jobs.

Bad for your health

With this in mind, we teamed up with two other management researchers, Kimberly Rocheville of Creighton University and Njoke Thomas of Boston College, to conduct a study that Academy of Management Journal published online in January 2026 and will include in an upcoming print edition.

We interviewed 66 people between 2019 and 2021. All of them said that they were in chronic pain – meaning pain that lasts for at least three months. They were all U.S. workers and at least 18 years old. They lived all over the country, in relatively more urban than rural areas. Our sample was 78% women because women tend to experience more chronic pain than men and tend to be more open to talking about their pain.

This professionally diverse group included lawyers, grocery store workers, teachers, police officers and health care professionals. They experienced many different kinds of pain, such as back pain, migraines, arthritis and fibromyalgia.

We found that this wide array of workers and white-collar professionals pushed through their pain because they felt pressure to have what we call an “ideal worker body”: a body that is healthy and strong enough to do anything their job requires.

Regardless of what job they had, people described a surprisingly similar pressure to perform despite their pain. From warehouse workers to lawyers, people felt they had no choice but to walk without a limp, lift heavy things and sit still during meetings.

Many of these people felt compelled to be ideal workers who put work before everything else in their lives. Previous research has found that these expectations can harm their mental health. We found that it can harm your physical health too.

Trapped in a cycle of pain and shame

Because they were in chronic pain, all of the participants in our study said their body wasn’t healthy and strong enough to do everything their job required when it required them to do it.

Even though they were more than intellectually capable of doing their work, they felt ashamed that their bodies fell short. This led them to hide their pain. They took the stairs, instead of the elevator, to seem more like their co-workers who felt fine. They avoided managing their pain in ways their colleagues could see, such as by applying ice to areas of their body that were in pain.

Ironically, trying to make it seem like their bodies were ideal worsened pain for all 66 of the people we interviewed. Most of them eventually reached a point where their pain became so intolerable that they could not function at or outside of work.

Some of them ultimately had to leave their jobs and found other ones that were more compatible with their chronic pain symptoms. In a few cases, they exited the workforce entirely.

This is not unusual. Chronic pain is the leading reason for workers becoming eligible for long-term disability benefits.

Breaking free of the cycle of shame and pain

A few of the people we interviewed told us that they managed to escape the damaging cycle of shame and pain.

Why were they able to break free?

First, they found doctors who told them their pain was real. Getting a clear diagnosis and having a medical professional recognize their physical limitations helped them understand that they could never look healthy and strong as expected, no matter how hard they tried.

This released them from the pressure of trying to do so.

Second, most of these people had employers who cared more about what they did – the work itself – and less about how their body looked and moved, even if this meant finding a new job or even changing their profession. As a result, they felt free to ask colleagues for help, stretch during meetings, use dictation software instead of typing, or keep the camera off during Zoom calls so they could lie down when their backs were aching.

They also came up with creative ways of working that were more efficient and better for their bodies. For example, an ultrasound technician told us that she learned to scan patients using both her arms instead of constantly using the same arm. A deli worker said she started using a cart to move heavy meats around the store.

Although we focused on how pressure to be strong and healthy can hurt workers with chronic pain, we believe our findings could matter to everyone – no matter their size, strength, age or employment status.

After all, it’s possible to feel social pressure to conceal aches and pain when you’re in public settings of any kind. And failing to move around when needed or take care of your body in other ways can make you vulnerable to more pain.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. For the nearly 1 in 4 US adults with chronic pain, employers’ expectations of a healthy body can lead to shame – https://theconversation.com/for-the-nearly-1-in-4-us-adults-with-chronic-pain-employers-expectations-of-a-healthy-body-can-lead-to-shame-278140

Why many older adults skip hard candy – how aging can change chewing and swallowing

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Sundeep Venkatesan, Assistant Professor of Speech and Language Pathology, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Holidays bring people together around food. FG Trade/E+ via Getty Images

Last Easter while my children were sorting through their baskets of chocolate eggs and jelly beans, my son looked up from the table and asked a simple question:

“Why don’t Grandma and Grandpa eat candy like we do?”

It was the kind of question children ask without really thinking. To him, it seemed obvious: Candy is delicious, so why wouldn’t everyone want it?

From a child’s perspective, it can look like older adults simply lose their taste for sweets. But as a speech-language pathologist who studies swallowing disorders, I know the explanation is often more complicated. In many cases, the issue has less to do with liking candy and more to do with something most people rarely have to think about: swallowing.

Swallowing is more complex than most people realize

You hardly notice the act of swallowing. It happens automatically every time we eat or drink. But swallowing is actually a remarkably complex process. More than 30 muscles and several nerves coordinate to move food from the mouth through the throat and into the esophagus while briefly protecting the airway.

One way to think about swallowing is like a carefully timed relay race. Each group of muscles passes food along to the next step at exactly the right moment, while the airway briefly closes to keep food from entering the lungs.

When everything works smoothly, it takes only a second or two.

Three different phases make up swallowing.

As people age, some parts of this process can change. Chewing muscles may lose a bit of strength. Saliva production can decrease, which makes dry or sticky foods harder to manage. Taste can also shift over time, and the timing of swallowing movements may become slightly slower.

Dental changes or missing teeth can make certain foods harder to chew. These shifts don’t necessarily mean something is wrong, but they can make certain textures more difficult to manage.

Candy is a good example. Many Easter treats – caramels, gummies and sticky chocolate – require strong chewing and precise coordination to swallow comfortably.

For someone whose swallowing has become slightly less efficient, those foods can suddenly feel like more effort than they used to.

When swallowing changes become a disorder

Sometimes, swallowing changes go beyond normal aging. The medical term for difficulty swallowing is dysphagia, and it is a condition that can occur for many reasons. Researchers estimate that about 1 in 25 adults experience dysphagia, making it a relatively common but often overlooked health condition.

A diagram showing a person's head from the side, with their digestive and nasal passages highlighted.
This diagram shows the digestive and nasal passages used in swallowing and breathing. Multiple muscles must work in tandem to successfully swallow.
medicalstocks/iStock via Getty Images

Stroke, Parkinson’s disease, dementia and other neurological conditions can affect the muscles and nerves that control swallowing. In health care settings, speech-language pathologists frequently see swallowing problems among older adults recovering from illness or managing chronic conditions.

When swallowing becomes difficult, eating can feel tiring or uncomfortable. Some people cough while eating. Others feel like food is getting stuck in their throat or notice that meals take longer than they used to.

To avoid discomfort, many people quietly begin adjusting what they eat. They may choose softer foods, take smaller bites or skip foods that feel harder to swallow.
Sometimes that includes sticky or chewy candies.

To others at the table, it may appear that Grandma or Grandpa no longer enjoys sweets. But these changes are often subtle adaptations that make eating safer and more manageable.

Food is about more than nutrition

Eating is not just about getting calories or nutrients. Food is tied to memory, tradition and connection.

Think about how many family traditions revolve around meals. Holiday dinners, birthday cakes and seasonal treats bring people together. Sharing food is one of the most universal ways in which families celebrate and connect across generations.

When swallowing becomes difficult, the effects go beyond the physical challenge of eating. People may start avoiding certain foods or feel self-conscious eating around others. Over time, they may even withdraw from shared meals.

That’s one reason many clinicians now emphasize quality of life alongside safety when treating swallowing disorders.

Speech-language pathologists are the health care professionals who evaluate and treat swallowing disorders. Through specialized assessments and therapy, they help people find strategies that make eating safer and more comfortable. Sometimes the changes needed are surprisingly small.

Helping older adults continue to enjoy food

Family members are often the first to notice when someone’s eating habits begin to change. Signs that may suggest swallowing difficulty include coughing or throat clearing during meals, needing extra time to chew food, or avoiding certain textures — especially dry or sticky foods.

If these patterns appear regularly, a medical evaluation can help identify whether swallowing changes are involved.

The goal is rarely to eliminate someone’s favorite foods entirely. Instead, clinicians often help people find ways to continue enjoying meals safely – whether that means modifying food textures, adjusting eating strategies or addressing the underlying condition affecting swallowing.

In many cases, these adjustments allow older adults to keep participating in the meals and traditions that matter most to them.

An array of different types of candy
Candy is one example of a food that can become tricker to eat and swallow with age.
MixitIstock/iStock via Getty Images

A different way to see that moment at the table

The next time candy appears at a holiday gathering, a grandparent’s decision to pass might raise a question from a curious child.

Sometimes the explanation really is simple preference. But other times, the answer lies in the quiet changes that can occur in chewing and swallowing as people age. Understanding those changes can help families respond with a little more awareness and patience.

After all, the joy of sharing food together doesn’t disappear with age. It just might require a little more understanding of how the body works.

The Conversation

Sundeep Venkatesan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Why many older adults skip hard candy – how aging can change chewing and swallowing – https://theconversation.com/why-many-older-adults-skip-hard-candy-how-aging-can-change-chewing-and-swallowing-278372

La selección: la ciencia con buenas historias entra

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Laura G. de Rivera, Ciencia + Tecnología, The Conversation

Logomaker691/Shutterstock

Nos gusta que nos cuenten historias, lo llevamos en los genes. Son adaptativas, porque gracias a ellas el ser humano podía aprender en pescuezo ajeno a prevenir riesgos, a aspirar a éxitos, a soñar. Por eso, cuando ciencia y narrativa se dan la mano, nuestra imaginación alza el vuelo y conectamos con el corazón de esos investigadores, exploradores, aventureros que saben llevarnos bajo el ala.

Por eso, nos entusiasman relatos con tintes míticos como el del Paleodyction, un misterioso organismo que dibuja patrones en el mar profundo desde hace millones de años y del que, por el momento, solo tenemos sus huellas y sus fósiles. Leyendo sobre esta misteriosa criatura que persiguen los biólogos casi podemos sentir que vamos en esa expedición a la zona Clarion Clippertone, perdida en medio del océano Pacífico, de la que volvían los autores de este artículo justo cuando este se publicaba.

Lo mismo nos pasa cuando nos hablan de las posibilidades de encontrar vida extraterrestre: durante los minutos que dura la lectura, podemos fantasear con que atravesamos la zona habitable de la galaxia Andrómeda siguiendo señales enviadas a la Tierra por una civilización desconocida. O quizá nos guste más imaginar que trabajamos con esos grandes telescopios que ven cómo el Sol engulle un cometa viajero cuya órbita se originó en la Nube de Oort –que existe, aunque parezca un nombre de ciencia ficción–, descubren la posible primera luna fuera del sistema solar o sorprenden in fraganti una estrella masiva que desaparece de golpe.

Como hay gustos para todo, otros querrán intuir la sensación de triunfo que experimentó ese científico consagrado a su laboratorio con olor a plátano fermentado cuando por primera vez dio con una mosca mutante, gracias a la cual se lograron explicar las bases de la herencia genética ligada al sexo.

De los mutantes podemos pasar a un drama psicológico, sumergirnos en el océano profundo de las redes sociales y ver con una lupa cómo la biometría de la conducta nos delata solo con un puñado de “me gusta”. O, por qué no, meternos en una película de intriga y espías, aprendiendo las raíces profundas del conflicto entre Anthropic y el Pentágono de EE. UU. y visualizando cómo Elon Musk planea convertir el espacio cercano en una red de computación satelital gigante.

Así somos. Nos encanta que nos cuenten buenas historias. Lo necesitamos casi tanto como aprender, respirar, vivir.

The Conversation

ref. La selección: la ciencia con buenas historias entra – https://theconversation.com/la-seleccion-la-ciencia-con-buenas-historias-entra-278854

Couples share 30% of their gut bacteria. Here’s how that may affect health

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Conor Meehan, Associate Professor of Microbial Bioinformatics, Nottingham Trent University

Living with your partner can influence the microbiome. PeopleImages/ Shutterstock

When living with a partner, you might be sharing more than just the same home, lifestyle and interests. You might also share various microscopic organisms residing on and in you.

This community of microorganisms, which consists of mainly bacteria, viruses and fungi, is known collectively as the human microbiome. The various microbiomes found throughout the body all play an important role in health.

From birth, the human microbiome is shaped by our interactions with our mother, who introduces diverse microorganisms that build our immune and digestive systems. As we get older, social interactions with our close community continue influencing this delicate ecosystem.

The people we live with have huge influence on what microbes we have in our microbiome. In fact, it’s thought that partners share around 30% of their resident microbes in the gut alone.

But it isn’t just the microbes in your gut that may be similar to your partner. The microbes in many other parts of the body may also be shared with your loved one – and this could potentially affect your health.

Gut microbiome

Diet and lifestyle are thought to have the greatest influence on the gut microbiome’s make-up. But studies on couples have found that living with your partner can also influence the microbiome.

Couples living together may share 13% to 30% of their gut bacteria. This was true even when diet (which many couples share) was factored out.
Research also shows that couples who live together have greater microbial diversity compared to people who live alone.

This is good news for couples who co-habitate, as a more diverse gut microbiome is correlated with lower risk of irritable bowel syndrome, cardiovascular diseases and potentially high blood sugar.

But it might not all be good news. Research shows that some of the bacterial species couples share can have varying effects on health.

Take the bacteria from the Ruminococcus family. While some species of Ruminoccocus benefit health, others have been linked to negative health outcomes, including diabetes and irritable bowel syndrome.

So these bacteria may not always offer the same benefits in different demographics. This highlights the complexity of resident gut bacteria and their health impacts.

Oral microbiome

Sharing an oral microbiome with our partners might seem obvious considering we regularly exchange saliva when we kiss. A ten-second kiss alone can exchange up to 80 million bacteria. The more kisses a couple shares, the more shared salivary bacteria they will have.

Although most of these bacteria will quickly pass through our mouth and into our gut when we swallow saliva, research show that couples actually share many of the same longer-term tongue microbes that form the foundation of the oral microbiome. Research even suggests that 38% of the oral microbiome is shared in couples living together – compared to only 3% in couples who don’t live together.

Sharing this proportion of your oral microbiome could have many potential health effects.

A healthy oral microbiome is important for protecting against tooth decay and it has anti-inflammatory properties. Some researchers also suggest the oral microbiome’s health effects may extend as far as the gut and nervous system.

But some of the bacteria that couples tend to share may also have potentially harmful health effects.

Couples are more likely to have similar numbers of the bacteria Neisseria in their gut compared to single people. Neisseria can reside in the mouth for long periods of without causing disease.

A digital rendering of the Neisseria bacteria.
Some types of Neisseria can be harmful, while others are helpful.
Tatiana Shepeleva/ Shutterstock

Some Neisseria bacteria can be harmful and may cause meningitis. Yet some Neisseria bacteria actually fight against these meningitis-causing species, stopping them from overgrowing and causing harm.

So while you may want to avoid kissing someone when they’re poorly for obvious reasons, it turns out that a kiss even when you’re healthy can transfer all sorts of bacteria between the two of you.

More research is needed to really understand what overall effect sharing these bacteria with your partner has on health.

Skin microbiome

The skin microbiome is the most unique and personalised microbiome, tailored to each person. It’s even sometimes referred to as our microbial fingerprint.

Being the most exposed microbiome, the skin microbiome has evolved to be adaptable to external factors such as the climate and cosmetic products. No matter what, these bacteria work hard to remain at an equilibrium.

Close contact with our partners – and even pets – has a huge influence on what bacteria live on our skin. After comparing the gut and oral microbiome, researchers found the skin microbiome to be the most similar among couples.

It isn’t just the bacteria on your arms or hands that are shared, either. Research shows that couples shared 35% of the bacteria living on their feet, and around 17.5% of the bacteria on their eyelids.

You may not even need to touch your partner to have the same skin bacteria as them. Factors such as sleeping in the same bed and walking on similar surfaces are thought to explain why such a large proportion of our skin microbiome is similar.

This is because humans naturally shed bacteria in a similar way as dogs shed fur. We leave traces of our bacteria on everything we touch – and we also easily pick up bacteria from our environments.

The shared effect of living together on the skin microbiome is so great that researchers were able to use computer models to accurately predict 86% of cohabiting couples based off of their individual bacterial samples alone.

But while it’s clear that couples share much of the same skin microbiome, the health effect that this has is not currently known.

While sharing bacteria with your partner may sound alarming, there’s often no cause for concern. Bacteria teach our bodies how to fight infections, they help us digest foods and even produce key nutrients. The bacteria we share with our partners are often harmless and sometimes benefit our health rather than hindering it.

The Conversation

Janelle Mwerinde is doing a PhD in skin microbiology sponsored by and affiliated with the Walgreens Boots Alliance.

Conor Meehan 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. Couples share 30% of their gut bacteria. Here’s how that may affect health – https://theconversation.com/couples-share-30-of-their-gut-bacteria-heres-how-that-may-affect-health-276342

Lead Children: new Netflix series reminds us that lead poisoning is still a global health problem

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jane Entwistle, Professor of Environmental Geochemistry, Northumbria University, Newcastle

The new Netflix series Lead Children has put a spotlight on the issue of lead poisoning in 1970s Poland. The series follows a young doctor who discovers that children living near a smelting plant have been poisoned with lead.

According to the latest Global Burden of Disease study, exposure to lead remains one of the leading environmental risk factors for early death and poor health globally. Unicef estimates that one in three children worldwide have an elevated blood lead level, highlighting this modern global health failure.

Historically, lead has been used in paint, gasoline, water supply pipes and industry. This has contaminated air, water, soil, dust and foods, which is why lead is a persistent and toxic environmental problem.

While the global elimination of lead from gasoline has been hugely successful in reducing lead in air, leading to a fall in population-wide blood lead concentrations in many countries, decline is not eradication.

We still live with the consequences from leaded paint being widely used until the 1960s on domestic and workplace skirting boards, bannisters, windowsills, doorframes and radiators. Lead is also still found in uPVC and leaded windows, roof flashings, glazed kitchenware, as well as some traditional medicines and cosmetics.

This may explain why ingestion, rather than inhalation from leaded gasoline, is now the dominant source of lead exposure in high-income countries.

Health effects of lead

Lead is a cumulative toxin so there is no safe blood lead concentration. Children under the age of six are particularly vulnerable to its effects. Even low-level exposure impacts neurodevelopment – resulting in lower IQ, reduced attention span, antisocial behaviour, ADHD and hearing loss.

Lead exposure at all ages can cause cardiovascular disease, kidney impairment, infertility, increased risk of spontaneous abortion, preterm birth, depression and panic disorder. It causes permanent structural brain changes in adults (particularly males) who were exposed to lead during childhood. These include a loss of brain volume in areas responsible for executive function, behavioural regulation and fine motor control.

It’s estimated that the global cost of childhood lead exposure may be around US$3.4 trillion (£2.5 trillion) per year. These losses are estimated by accounting for the lower lifetime earnings and lower economic productivity that children exposed to lead experience due to reduced intelligence and lower educational attainment. Since it doesn’t include healthcare costs, it may even be an underestimate.

Preventing harm

Unlike several other counties (such as France, Germany and the USA) there is currently no large-scale childhood blood lead monitoring programme in the UK. This is significant, as estimates from 2020 suggest that 180,000 to 280,000 children in the UK have elevated blood lead concentrations.

In 2014 the UK established the Lead Exposure in Children Surveillance System (LEICSS) so that NHS laboratories could notify the UK Health Security Agency of children with raised blood lead concentrations, but testing is only initiated if there’s a high clinical suspicion of lead poisoning. Since low and moderate blood concentrations tend not to produce symptoms, many UK children with elevated blood lead levels are likely to go undetected. Indeed in 2024, only 247 cases were reported to LEICSS.

There are also shortcomings with current techniques used to detect lead exposure in the UK. At the moment, blood taken directly from a vein (a venous sample) remains the gold standard for determining exposure to lead.

This technique requires a nurse or other healthcare professional to collect the sample, which makes it hard to test lots of people. It also means that families must take time out of their day and travel to a clinic to be tested.
Alternative testing methods using urine, hair and saliva have been used, but are typically subject to large biological variations and less accurate than venous blood samples.

This is why my colleagues and I launched the ECLIPS study in November 2025. This is the UK’s first citizen-led childhood lead exposure study, which is being conducted in Leeds, northern England.

We chose Leeds because not only is it a typical post-industrial city, it has had the highest reporting rates of lead poisoning to LEICSS for the past ten consecutive years. It’s also the only part of the country with a targeted alert system designed to support healthcare professionals in identifying lead poisoning in children: when a healthcare worker requests a test for iron deficiency, the electronic system includes a prompt suggesting the staff member also have the sample tested for lead levels.

Our study uses finger-prick blood sampling kits that are mailed to families in Leeds. Participants are asked to collect a few drops of blood from their child’s finger onto a sampling device, which is then mailed to a central laboratory for analysis. This overcomes the main limitations of current sampling techniques. Participants are also provided with advice on ways to reduce lead exposure at home.

The results of this study are currently ongoing, but we believe it could be an opportunity to develop a large-scale programme for testing childhood blood lead in the UK. It would also pave the way to wider testing nationally and internationally.

This latest Netflix series highlights the human cost of lead contamination. It also drives home the importance of taking action early to protect children from the damaging, often lifelong, health effects of lead. Early detection can change lives and save billions in lost opportunity costs.

The Conversation

Jane Entwistle receives funding for ECLIPS from the Medical Research Council (MR/Z505717/1).

ref. Lead Children: new Netflix series reminds us that lead poisoning is still a global health problem – https://theconversation.com/lead-children-new-netflix-series-reminds-us-that-lead-poisoning-is-still-a-global-health-problem-276557

Why scientists are exploring brain cooling as a defence against altitude sickness

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adnan Haq, Lecturer in Sport and Exercise Science, University of South Wales

Kirill Skorobogatko/Shutterstock

In the 2021 Netflix documentary 14 Peaks: Nothing Is Impossible, elite mountaineer Nirmal Purja races up the world’s highest summits at extraordinary speed. But even he isn’t immune to altitude.

During one ascent, Purja develops symptoms of high-altitude cerebral oedema (brain swelling), a dangerous form of altitude sickness that can strike with little warning. It’s a stark reminder that when oxygen levels fall, no amount of fitness or experience guarantees protection.

Research from my colleagues and I suggests that much of the damage caused by altitude sickness begins with stress inside the brain itself. If we can reduce that stress early, we may be able to interrupt the chain reaction that leads to more serious symptoms.

Each year, thousands of trekkers and climbers develop some form of altitude illness after ascending above about 2,500 metres. The mild form, acute mountain sickness, is common and unpleasant: headaches, nausea, dizziness and fatigue. More severe conditions, including high-altitude cerebral oedema and high-altitude pulmonary oedema, (swelling in the lungs) can be fatal if not treated quickly.

Different medications can help but are far from perfect. A diuretic medicine known as acetazolamide encourages breathing to improve oxygen levels. A steroid drug called dexamethasone can be lifesaving in high-altitude cerebral oedema, while nifedipine (a blood pressure drug) or sildenafil (better known as Viagra) can ease high altitude pulmonary oedema by reducing pressure in the lungs.

But these medications come with side-effects, some of which mimic altitude sickness itself. And the only guaranteed treatment – descending to a lower altitude – is not always possible in bad weather or on crowded mountain routes.

Supplemental oxygen works well once illness develops, but it is heavy, expensive and can interfere with natural acclimatisation. It’s an effective rescue tool, not a practical preventive one for most mountaineers.

So what if we could be proactive rather than reactive?

Why cooling the brain might help

Targeted brain cooling (or therapeutic hypothermia) has long been used in hospitals for cardiac arrest, newborn babies who need oxygen, as well as treating traumatic brain injury. The principle is simple – a cooler brain requires less oxygen and generates fewer metabolic byproducts.

The byproducts being referred to here are called “free radicals”. These highly reactive molecules increase when the body is stressed, as it is at altitude where oxygen is scarce. In excess, they cause what scientists call “oxidative stress”, damaging brain cells, weakening the blood–brain barrier and triggering inflammation.

They also interfere with nitric oxide, a chemical that helps blood vessels open properly. Together, these effects disrupt blood flow and allow fluid to leak into brain tissue, which are processes thought to underpin acute mountain sickness and high-altitude cerebral oedema.

Think of it like this: at high altitude, free radicals act like rust in your brain’s plumbing. They eat away at the seals and allow fluid to seep where it shouldn’t.

Research suggests that lowering brain temperature by just 1°C can reduce its metabolic rate – and therefore oxygen demand – by roughly 5% to 9%. With less demand comes fewer free radicals and potentially less swelling. Individually, these changes are modest. Combined, they could offer meaningful protection.

14 Peaks: Nothing Is Impossible | Official Trailer.

How do you cool a brain on a mountain?

Whole-body hypothermia is dangerous and impractical outdoors. So, the goal is selective brain cooling. In other words, lowering brain temperature while keeping the rest of the body warm. Several types of technology make this possible.

Cooling helmets, already used in neurocritical care, can reduce brain temperature by nearly 2°C within an hour while leaving core temperature stable. Cervical cooling collars are devices designed to be worn around the neck and upper shoulder area, and can target the major blood vessels supplying the brain. They have shown promising improvements in cerebral blood flow. Intranasal cooling systems exist too, but they are too invasive for healthy mountaineers.

So, helmets and collars are the most realistic options for expedition use. They are portable, non-invasive and are becoming lighter. But they are still far from being standard trekking gear.

There is another complication. At altitude, the brain naturally increases blood flow in an effort to deliver more oxygen. That warm blood acts like a radiator, potentially cancelling out cooling if devices are used too late. Early application, before this response kicks in, may be crucial.

Right now, we simply don’t know whether this could help prevent altitude sickness. The theory is strong, however, and evidence from other neurological conditions is encouraging. But selective brain cooling has not yet been tested in real (or simulated) high-altitude environments. We don’t know whether field-based cooling could meaningfully reduce oxidative stress, or whether mountaineers could even tolerate wearing cooling gear during long ascents.




Read more:
Altitude sickness is typically mild but can sometimes turn very serious − a high-altitude medicine physician explains how to safely prepare


Still, given the shortcomings of current treatments, and the growing popularity of high-altitude travel, the idea deserves serious investigation. Laboratory studies using simulated hypoxia (when there is less oxygen in the air), wearable biosensors and eventually field trials on trekking routes could help determine whether “brain chill” offers genuine protection.

For now, selective brain cooling remains an intriguing, speculative strategy. At best, it would complement rather than replace the basics of altitude safety – gradual ascent, early symptom recognition and timely descent.

Purja’s near miss in 14 Peaks shows that the mountains do not discriminate. If a simple, non-drug intervention could buy climbers more time or reduce risk, it could become a valuable addition to the mountaineer’s toolkit.

Whether cooling your head could help you keep your cool at altitude remains an open question. But it’s one worth exploring.

The Conversation

Adnan Haq 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. Why scientists are exploring brain cooling as a defence against altitude sickness – https://theconversation.com/why-scientists-are-exploring-brain-cooling-as-a-defence-against-altitude-sickness-275119

The Iran war has lessons to teach us about nuclear weapons – but we risk learning the wrong ones

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Vaughan, Lecturer in International Security, University of Leeds; Sciences Po

Nuclear “non-proliferation” – preventing the spread of nuclear weapons beyond states that already have them – has been held up as the rationale for the US-Israeli war on Iran.

In his statement announcing the start of the operation on February 28, Donald Trump said: “we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. It’s a very simple message. They will never have a nuclear weapon.”

This highlights two lessons about the problems with non-proliferation logic as an approach to dealing with nuclear weapons. First, non-proliferation can be exploited to provide political cover for otherwise unpopular military aggression. And second, non-proliferation logic risks undermining itself by driving target states to acquire nuclear weapons.

Non-proliferation is globally popular. Currently, 190 states – including Iran – are party to the 1968 non-proliferation treaty (NPT). This enshrines into international law a regime to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

All non-nuclear armed member states agree to take part in the treaty’s monitoring and verification regime. This aims to ensure they do not divert civilian nuclear technology and activity, like the production of fuel for power plants or isotopes for medical settings, to military ends.

The problem is that nuclear technology is, as US-based researcher Itty Abraham shows in his work, “ambivalent”. There is no physical boundary between civil and military uses. If a state can enrich uranium for nuclear fuel, it can do so for nuclear warheads.

Non-proliferation logic also assumes that any state with the ability to produce nuclear weapons will do so. This belief is known as “capacity determinism” and is debunked by the historical record.

If it was true, we could expect the Netherlands, Japan, Germany, Argentina and Brazil to have directed their enrichment capabilities into weapons. Taiwan, Libya, Sweden and Switzerland also would not have reversed their nuclear weapons programmes, and South Africa would not have voluntarily disarmed.

Exploiting non-proliferation

This brings us to the first lesson from the Iran war. Through a non-proliferation lens, it is possible to see any state with its own nuclear programme as a threat. This is particularly true for countries already seen as badly behaved by the international community.

Non-proliferation is widely seen as an “indisputable public good” that benefits every state in the world. It is therefore easy for the US to dress up its war of aggression against Iran, which is illegal under international law, as an act of global protection. It did the same in Iraq in 2003.

There is no reason for this to be limited to the US, either. Any of China, France, Russia or the UK – the other permanent members of the UN security council who are permitted to have nuclear weapons under the NPT – could do the same.

The second lesson is that non-proliferation logic tends to undermine itself. Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, was killed by airstrikes early in the war. While he had pursued other bloodthirsty policies, Khamenei refused to authorise Iranian scientists and the military from restarting the country’s nuclear weapons programme that had stopped in 2003.

Iran was enriching uranium to somewhere around 60% purity. This is far above the 3% to 5% required to fuel nuclear power reactors, but below the 90% ideally required for a nuclear warhead – though it is close. It is also technically possible, albeit not optimal, to build a nuclear warhead with this level of enrichment.

In this way, Iran appears to have been deliberately playing with nuclear ambivalence. According to nuclear analyst Ludovica Castelli, Iran was demonstrating a range of values including “recognition, autonomy, sovereignty and political dignity” by touting its proximity to building a nuclear weapon without actually doing so.

Khamenei seems to have made a bet that achieving “nuclear threshold” status, where a state has the potential to develop nuclear weapons at short notice, would be enough to do this and to deter US or Israeli attacks. However, non-proliferation logic forces us to assume the worst.

So Iran has been punished as if it was pursuing nuclear weapons when, according to experts including Rafael Grossi, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, this does not appear to have been the case. Iran has borne all the costs of being a “proliferator”, while reaping none of the perceived security benefits of nuclear weapons.

Once the smoke clears, we should not be surprised when the regime – provided it survives – concludes that it has nothing left to lose from pursuing nuclear weapons in earnest. This war of non-proliferation risks achieving the exact opposite outcome, though this is not a foregone conclusion.

Nuclear deterrence

It is also possible that a third, dangerous lesson will be learned from this war: that nuclear weapons are valuable or even indispensable to the national security of non-superpower states. Ukraine, Venezuela and Iran have all now recently been attacked by nuclear-armed superpowers.

Other vulnerable states may well, not unreasonably, conclude that they too should obtain nuclear weapons to deter such threats. Similarly, the war has amplified calls for the UK and Europe more widely to expand their own nuclear arsenals to guarantee strategic independence from the US.

This is the wrong lesson for two reasons. First, any state embarking on a new nuclear weapons programme will make itself vulnerable to future wars of non-proliferation by adventurous superpowers before they have enough operational nuclear weapons to deter an attack.

And second, while nuclear weapons may provide a short- or medium-term mirage of “national security”, in the long-term they all but guarantee global disaster. Nuclear weapons cannot be controlled. One accident or error can spell armageddon.

The war in Iran should awaken us to this danger. It should not scare us into thinking that we must always live under the nuclear shadow. We urgently need to think about alternative security policies that do not entrench global nuclear danger and harm.

If this seems unrealistic, remember that some of the steepest historic reductions in nuclear stockpiles have been achieved straight after periods of extreme tension. The 1987 intermediate range nuclear forces treaty, signed between the US and Soviet Union towards the end of the cold war, is a good example.

Under its terms, the two states destroyed over 2,600 nuclear weapons. We have the capability to repeat and surpass these achievements: nuclear fatalism is an indefensible response.

The Conversation

Tom Vaughan receives funding from The Network of European Institutes of Advanced Study, under the Constructive Advanced Thinking scheme, for the project “Theories of Change and Nuclear Disarmament”. He is a Senior Research Associate of the Nuclear Knowledges research centre at CERI, Sciences Po Paris.

ref. The Iran war has lessons to teach us about nuclear weapons – but we risk learning the wrong ones – https://theconversation.com/the-iran-war-has-lessons-to-teach-us-about-nuclear-weapons-but-we-risk-learning-the-wrong-ones-278455