Academic Analysis – Page 526 – MIL Submissions Engine

February 13, 2026

Why forcing Ukraine into an election could misfire for Trump

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

Before he sent his war machine into Ukraine nearly four years ago, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, talked of the need to rid the country of the “neo-Nazi cabal” which was holding it hostage and perpetrating a “genocide” of Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine.

Putin has doubled down on this regularly during the conflict, refusing to recognise Ukraine’s sitting president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a legitimate negotiating partner and repeatedly calling for elections. He seems to have found a receptive ear in Donald Trump, who has repeated this call several times, usually after a phone chat with the Russian leader.

Now it’s being reported that Zelensky is planning for elections and a referendum on the Trump peace proposal, after the US insisted he do both by May 15 or lose US security guarantees. Zelensky has repeatedly pointed out that the Ukrainian constitution bars elections while martial law is in effect.

It’s easy to see why. As it stands, 20% of Ukraine’s territory is occupied by Russia. Do the people living on that land get a vote? How about the millions of displaced people – either in Ukraine or in the enforced diaspora? How to organise ballots for the hundreds of thousands of troops on active duty? The logistics are mind-boggling.

But it’s not just logistics. Stefan Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham, and Tetyana Malyarenko of the University of Odesa present five reasons why holding a poll and referendum are a problem, given the present circumstances.

On the face of it, they argue, it feels as if the US president is once again coming up with a plan that favours Russia over Ukraine. But given the impossibility of organising these votes under the present circumstances, let alone providing for what would happen if, as seems likely, the people vote for Zelensky and against the Trump peace deal, this might actually play into the hands of Kyiv and its allies. Apart from anything else, the process will buy them some time to come up with a new strategy that will take into account Washington’s role as the most unreliable of partners.

Having said that, the phrase “if the people vote for Zelensky” is doing some heavy lifting here. The fact is that, four years into an existential struggle, Ukrainians are exhausted and morale is taking a beating in the face of relentless Russian bombardment. Zelensky, who was voted into power with 74% of the vote in 2019 on a platform of fighting corruption has seen some of his closest political allies embroiled in massive corruption scandals.

The fact that the most recent scandal, which saw his chief of staff resign, related to allegations of graft involving Ukraine’s biggest energy supplier was particularly damaging, given that many Ukrainians are living without power in the coldest winter in a decade, thanks to Russian bombing.

So Zelensky’s reelection is not a foregone conclusion. In fact, two of his close associates – Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the former chief of Ukraine’s armed forces and now ambassador to the US, and Kyrylo Budanov, who the Ukrainian president recently appointed as his chief of staff – would both be popular candidates. Neither has said they would run for office, but what politician ever does say that – until they do?

Jennifer Mathers, an expert in Russian and eastern European politics at Aberystwyth University, takes us through the possible challengers.

The Epstein files

To Washington, where members of Congress have started to sift through some of the 3 million documents from the “Epstein files” released by the Department of Justice at the end of January. Observers have commented that, unlike in Europe, where the fallout has included considerable political splashback for some important people, reaction in the US – so far at least – has been comparatively muted.

Of course, the unredacted files have only just been made available to US lawmakers. So it’s hard to gauge how people are going to react when big names begin to be linked with sleazy acts – whether that might be sexual, political or business-related.

Releasing the files is a gamble for the US Department of Justice and the attorney-general, Pam Bondi, writes Katie Pruszynski, an analyst of US politics at the University of Sheffield. While the potential for scandal is huge, the US public is having to digest so many other stories. This year alone, the US has conducted a raid on Venezuela and abducted its president. There have been threats against Greenland and Canada. The activities of ICE and other immigration agencies in US cities, particularly in Minneapolis where two people have been shot dead, have also rightly dominated headlines.

On top of that, millions of people have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket after the subsidies established under Obamacare lapsed on January 1. People may simply not have the mental bandwidth to take it all in.

But all this might change once the unredacted files are made public. The key thing Republicans will be hoping for is that any furore surrounding the Epstein scandal will die down before the midterm elections in November.

Meanwhile, as Pruszynski notes, Epstein’s victims – many of whose names were not redacted, despite the US Congress passing a law to that effect – are still waiting for justice.

The release of victims’ names raises an interesting side issue: who decides what information is released and what is redacted? Matthew Mokhefi-Ashton explains the competing legal principles which balance the public’s right to know with people’s right to privacy.

Hard times in Havana

When the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, was taking questions after the raid on Caracas on January 3, he appeared to relish the idea of the US turning its attention to Cuba, commenting that: “If I lived in Havana, and I was in the government, I’d be concerned – at least a little bit.” His boss appeared to rule out direct intervention, at least for now, saying: “Cuba is ready to fall … I don’t think we need any action. Looks like it’s going down. It’s going down for the count.”

He may not be far off the mark, given that Cuba is fast running out of oil. The situation there is so parlous that at least one air carrier, Air Canada, has cancelled all flights to Cuba because it can’t be sure that its aircraft would be able to refuel. This is a disaster. Cuba is heavily dependent on tourism for the foreign currency is so desperately needs.

Since Trump returned to power a year ago, the US has made it nigh on impossible for Cuba to source enough fuel to meet its energy needs. Now he is essentially saying the communist government of Miguel Díaz-Canel must negotiate a deal (on American terms) or else.

But whatever Rubio, who has nursed a career-long obsession with his parents’ home country of Cuba, may want to see, achieving regime change on the Caribbean island will not be easy, writes Nicolas Forsans of University of Essex. Forsans sketches out what a US deal with Cuba that falls short of replacing the government might look like.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

– ref. Why forcing Ukraine into an election could misfire for Trump – https://theconversation.com/why-forcing-ukraine-into-an-election-could-misfire-for-trump-275866

February 13, 2026

How Iran’s current unrest can be traced back to the 1979 revolution

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mehmet Ozalp, Professor of Islamic Studies, Head of School, The Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilisation, Charles Sturt University

The recent unrest in Iran, with the third mass protests in the past six years, has left the theocratic regime wounded but not out.

Iran is no stranger to such unrest. In 1979, similar circumstances led to the Iranian revolution. However, Iranians soon became disappointed that the revolution did not deliver what they had been promised. So while the ideology of the revolution collapsed, the regime remains in place.

To understand this, we need to go back to the emergence of modern Iran.

Democracy or monarchy – whose choice is it?

The recent popular unrest reflects the Iranian people’s desire for self-determination, freedom and progress. The fight for self-determination goes back to the late 19th century and the rise of the Persian Constitutional Revolution.

In 1906, this push succeeded in forcing Qajar Shah to instate a constitution and one of the first parliaments in the Muslim world.

Later, in the turbulent aftermath of the first world war, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi led a military coup establishing modern Iran. He was an authoritarian leader, in keeping with the trend of the 1920s and 30s. At the same time, he also tried to modernise Iran with a series of reforms and developments.

During the second world war, Pahlavi was deposed with the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941. Iran was too important geopolitically – for the war in Russia against the Nazis and Indian Ocean against the Japanese – with a constant and free supply of oil for the British war machine.

This importance did not wane after the war. Now, the Cold War dominated geopolitics and Muslim countries found themselves in the middle of it. Iran and Turkey were key countries where communist Soviet expansion efforts were intensified.

In response, the United States provided both countries with economic and political support in return for their membership in the democratic western block. Turkey and Iran accepted this support and became democratic in 1950 and 1951, respectively.

Later in 1951, Mohammad Mosaddeq’s National Front became the first democratically-elected Iranian government. Mosaddeq was a modern, secular-leaning, progressive leader who was able to gain the broad support of both the secular elite and the Iranian ulama (Islamic scholars).

He was helped by a growing public disdain for Pahlavi monarchy and rising Iranian anger at British exploitation of their oil fields. Iranians were only receiving 20% of the profits.

Mosaddeq made the bold move to address this issue by nationalising the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). This did not work out in his favour, as it attracted British and US economic sanctions, crippling the Iranian economy.

In 1953, once again, Iranian people were denied self-determination. The Mosaddeq government was replaced in a military coup organised by the CIA and British intelligence. The shah was returned to power and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company became BP, British Petroleum, with a 50-50 divide of profits.

Tanks on the streets of Tehran, 1956.
Wikicommons

This intervention sent the unintended message that a democratically elected government would be toppled if it did not fit with Western interests. This narrative continues to be the dominant discourse of Islamist activists today, in Iran and beyond.

The Islamic Revolution

Between 1953 and 1977, the shah relied heavily on the US in his efforts to modernise the army and Iranian society, and transform the economy through what he called the White Revolution.

But it came at a hefty cost. Wealth was unequally distributed, with a large underclass of peasants migrating to urban centres. The economy could not keep up with the growing population, unplanned urbanisation and lack of an open economy.

Having tasted democracy for a brief period during 1951–53, many Iranians wanted democratic rights and economic progress. This uprising resulted in large-scale political suppression of dissent.

Disillusioned religious scholars, such as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, were alarmed at the top-down imposition of a Western lifestyle, believing Islam was being completely removed from society.

In a 1978 interview with a US news program, Khomeini characterised the shah’s regime as one that deprived Iranians of independence and freedom, stating that “we don’t have the true independence, we are suffering […] we want the liberty of our people.”

What revolution promised but could not deliver

Ironically, Iranian protesters say almost the same things about the current regime created by Khomeini: that it is the cause of their suffering and lack of freedoms.

The revolution promised true independence, freedom, a more Islamic social and political order, and greater economic prosperity. The failure to deliver on these promises is at the heart of the popular unrest in Iran today.

The 1979 Islamic Revolution ended Iran’s strategic alignment with the US and the West, leading to decades of political and economic isolation. While the Islamic Republic maintained its ideological stance of “neither East nor West”, sustained Western sanctions gradually pushed Iran closer to Russia and China.

The 45 years of a theocratic regime have been equally or even more oppressive than the shah’s rule. People’s freedoms and rights have regressed significantly. While strict public dress codes for women remain in law and are still enforced — sometimes harshly, as seen in the 2022 protests following the death of Mahsa Amini — compliance has loosened over time, with many women pushing the boundaries in major urban centres.

The most important premise of Islamism – making society more religious through political power – has also failed. Nearly two-thirds of Iranians today were born after the 1979 revolution. Yet, a 2020 GAMAAN survey found state-driven Islamisation has not produced a more religious society. Identification with organised religion appears to have declined, particularly among younger people.

Khomeini and his supporters promised economic prosperity and to end the gap between rich and poor. Today, the Iranian economy is in poor shape, despite the oil revenues that hold it back from the brink of collapse. People are unhappy with high unemployment rates, hyper-inflation and never-ending sanctions. They have little hope for the country’s economic fortunes to turn.

As a result, Iranians have lost hope in the ruling elite’s ability to ensure a brighter future.

Will the theocratic regime collapse any time soon?

So, the main ideology of the revolution has collapsed. What about the regime itself?

For any regime to collapse, including the current one in Iran, four key forces and factors, or a combination of them, have to exert sufficient force: popular mass protests, an army coup, external interventions and division among the ruling elite.

Iran has seen many mass protests in the past 40 years. While these did not bring down the regime, their frequency is increasing.

The November 2019 protests, triggered by a sudden fuel price hike, rapidly spread across the country. The 2022–23 protests, sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody, evolved into a sustained nationwide movement under the slogan “woman, life, freedom”. Most recently, the 2025–26 protests have been driven primarily by a severe economic downturn.

But protests are not sufficient to cause a collapse of the regime. They are usually met with countrywide internet blackouts and violent crackdowns leading to hundreds of deaths. This happened again in the recent unrest, with the death toll reaching at least 5,000.

International interventions

Iran has been under extensive economic sanctions for decades, yet these have failed to bring about major political change or weaken the Islamic Republic’s hold on power. In the aftermath of the revolution, Iraq — backed politically and materially by United States and its allies — invaded Iran in 1980 in a bid to contain and possibly topple the new regime before it consolidated. After eight years of devastating war, this effort also failed to dislodge the Islamic Republic.

Other countries have launched short military interventions in the past, with the last one by the United States and Israel in June 2025 targeting the army headquarters and nuclear facilities. These did not lead to a regime change.

It seems anything short of a full-scale war or land invasion is unlikely to lead to a regime change in Iran. And we know from the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that such interventions don’t end well.

Could Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) stage a coup? It seems highly unlikely. The IRGC is structurally oriented toward preserving and reshaping the system from within, not overthrowing it. Created as a parallel force to prevent coups, the IRGC is intentionally kept fragmented, bound by layered chains of command, and vertically loyal to the supreme leader, making unified action very difficult.

Then, there is the potential for a leadership struggle within the regime itself. For now, this is not a factor, but it could be soon if the elderly Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei dies.

Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini in 1989, is Iran’s longest-serving leader. His power comes from being part of the original revolution, drawing respect within the leadership and supporters in the government.

He is 86 years old and has health issues. When he goes, there will be many vying for the role. Whoever becomes leader is likely to purge those who supported others, leading to political persecution and instability at the top.

It is very hard to predict when and if the current Islamic Republic will collapse. Iran may continue as is, but moderate over time. Such a trajectory is more likely to emerge through greater integration with the international community rather than continued isolation through sanctions.

Hard social, political and economic realities have an uncanny ability to test and smooth ideologies. If the regime stays hardline and unwilling to evolve, change is inevitable, and will probably occur at the least expected moment.

Mehmet Ozalp is the Executive Director of ISRA Academy.

– ref. How Iran’s current unrest can be traced back to the 1979 revolution – https://theconversation.com/how-irans-current-unrest-can-be-traced-back-to-the-1979-revolution-273445

February 13, 2026

Counter-drone technologies are evolving – but there’s no surefire way to defend against drone attacks

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jamey Jacob, Regents Professor of Aerospace Engineering and Executive Director, Oklahoma Aerospace Institute for Research and Education, Oklahoma State University

A Mexican law enforcement officer demonstrates a drone jammer. AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo

When the Federal Aviation Administration closed the airport in El Paso, Texas, and the airspace around it on Feb. 10, 2026, the cause was, ironically, the nearby use of a technology that could be key to keeping airports and airspace open and safe.

According to news reports, Customs and Border Protection officials used a Department of Defense anti-drone laser weapon to target what they identified as a drone crossing the border from Mexico. The FAA closed the El Paso airport and airspace out of concern that the weapon inadvertently posed a threat to air traffic in the area.

The targeted drone turned out to be a party balloon, though U.S. officials claim that drug cartels based in Mexico have flown drones at the U.S.-Mexico border. The episode highlights the need for counter-drone technologies, the state-of-the-art systems used by the U.S. military, and the challenges to safely and effectively countering drones, which are also known as uncrewed aircraft systems.

I am an aerospace engineer and director of the Counter-UAS Center of Excellence at Oklahoma State University, where we develop and evaluate technologies to detect, identify and counter drone threats. The military laser weapon CBP that personnel used near El Paso is an example of one of three categories of counter-drone technologies: directed energy weapons. The other two are radio frequency jamming and kinetic, or physical, weapons like missiles and nets.

The emerging threat

Starting in 2015, the ISIS terrorist group modified commercial off-the-shelf drones to drop grenades and mortars on U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria, who had little way to combat the threat. This started the trend of modifying consumer drones for military purposes that continues to this day on the Russian-Ukrainian front lines.

While military bases ostensibly have some protective capabilities, critical U.S. infrastructure such as airports and power plants have few methods to track, let alone defend against, drones. For example, in 2018, traffic at London Gatwick International Airport in the U.K. was shut down for three days because of an unidentified drone in the airport’s airspace. Hundreds of flights were canceled, affecting over 100,000 passengers.

Sites such as civilian and military airports, power plants and stadiums are vulnerable to drone flights, both from malicious and negligent operators. Drone flight over open stadiums such as those hosting upcoming FIFA World Cup soccer matches are banned by the FAA. But the ban wouldn’t prevent an errant civilian drone or a drone used in a terrorist attack from entering a stadium and potentially causing serious harm to spectators.

A drone and a small airplane in the air near each other — A drone flies near a small airplane in a test at Oklahoma State University.
Jamey Jacob

On June 1, 2025, Ukrainian forces deployed more than 100 “kamikaze” drones deep in Russian territory in an attack labeled Operation Spiderweb that damaged a significant portion of Russia’s bomber fleet. There is little stopping something like this from happening in the U.S.

To address this threat, companies are evaluating numerous ways to track, identify and, most importantly, defeat drones and protect critical U.S. infrastructure. At present, however, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Counter-drone technologies

Radio frequency waves that both track and jam drones have become widely used in the Russia-Ukraine war. Like all remote control devices, drones use radio frequencies to control flight and monitor video coming from the drone camera. Detectors can track these radio frequency signals to determine a drone’s location.

Devices that emit radio frequency signals can be used to block, or jam, communications between drones and their operators or send false, or spoofed, signals. Jamming or spoofing a drone typically causes it to enter into a “return to home” mode and leave the defended area. Radio frequency systems are helpful in situations where a low-impact response is required, because they prevent drones from completing their intended mission without causing physical damage to them.

However, this doesn’t necessarily work if a drone is operating in a “run silent” mode by not transmitting information back to a remote operator. Similarly, jamming GPS can cause a drone to lose its ability to navigate using the satellite system, but this also blocks GPS signals for other users. Drones can also navigate without GPS, with less accurate techniques such as following terrain with cameras or the dead reckoning approach commonly used by pilots.

Directed energy systems, on the other hand, use high-energy lasers or microwave beams to disable drones. These systems work by directing a concentrated beam of energy toward an incoming drone. A laser or microwave can heat components rapidly until the drone becomes inoperative. A laser can also disable a drone’s camera, disabling its surveillance capability. Additionally, because these systems use energy beams, they can engage multiple drones at once.

However, fast-moving drones may be difficult for the weapons to target, and the cost of such systems makes them prohibitively expensive for widespread use.

Kinetic systems involve physically intercepting drones to neutralize them. This category includes everything from net-carrying interceptor drones to traditional projectile weapons, such as firearms and missiles. Kinetic systems physically disable or capture drones, making them particularly useful in scenarios where it is necessary to quickly remove drones from sensitive areas or when the drone presents an immediate threat.

However, because a damaged aircraft can crash in unpredictable locations, these systems may be more effective in battlefields where falling debris is less likely to cause unwanted damage on the ground.

The U.S. military uses several counter-drone systems to defend against small drones.

Swiss cheese safety

Together, these three types of counter-drone technologies – radio frequency, directed energy and kinetic – provide a comprehensive tool kit for addressing the diverse threats posed by unauthorized drones. However, there is no single ideal solution to counter these threats.

To maximize safety, the Swiss cheese model is often the best approach. In this analogy, each defensive strategy is a slice of the familiar holey cheese. While some threats may pass through a hole in one layer, the next layer can capture what passes through. This way, a drone making it through the weaknesses in one system can be defeated by the next slice of cheese.

Jamey Jacob receives funding from the Depts. of Defense and Homeland Security to evaluate Counter-UAS capabilities and UAS threats. He is affiliated with AUVSI, the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI).

– ref. Counter-drone technologies are evolving – but there’s no surefire way to defend against drone attacks – https://theconversation.com/counter-drone-technologies-are-evolving-but-theres-no-surefire-way-to-defend-against-drone-attacks-229595

February 12, 2026

EPA rescinds 2009 endangerment finding, clearing way for Trump to shred more US climate rules – but serious court challenges await

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Gary W. Yohe, Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University

The administration is also loosening auto emission standards.
Alex Kent/Getty Images

In 2009 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally declared that greenhouse gas emissions, including from vehicles and industry, endanger public health and welfare. The decision, known as the endangerment finding, was based on years of evidence, and it has underpinned EPA actions on climate change ever since.

The Trump administration is now tearing up that finding as it tries to roll back climate regulations on everything from vehicles to industries.

“This is as big as it gets,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in announcing with President Donald Trump on Feb. 12, 2026, that the administration had “terminated” the endangerment finding. Zeldin argued that the finding had “no basis in law.” Trump, smiling next to him, talked about the benefits of fossil fuels and said the finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare “had no basis in fact. None whatsoever.”

An airplane flying over a packed highway with San Diego in the background. — Transportation is the nation’s leading source of emissions, yet the federal government aims to roll back vehicle standards and other regulations written to help slow climate change.
Kevin Carter/Getty Images

There’s no question that the EPA’s decision will be challenged in court. The legal question over the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases will be debated, just as it was in 2009. The administration’s claim that the finding was scientifically wrong, however, has no basis in fact.

The world just experienced its three hottest years on record, evidence of worsening climate change is stronger now than ever before, and people across the U.S. are increasingly experiencing the harm firsthand.

Several legal issues have already surfaced that could get in the EPA’s way. They include evidence from emails submitted in a court case that suggest political appointees sought to direct the scientific review that the administration has used to defend its plan, at the exclusion of respected scientific sources. On Jan. 30 a federal judge ruled that the Department of Energy violated the law when it handpicked five researchers to write the climate science review. The ruling doesn’t necessarily stop the EPA, but it raises questions.

To understand what happens now, it helps to look back at history for some context.

The Supreme Court started it

The endangerment finding stemmed from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.

The court found that various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, were “pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act,” and it gave the EPA an explicit set of instructions.

The court wrote that the “EPA must determine whether or not emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

But the Supreme Court did not order the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Only if the EPA found that emissions were harmful would the agency be required, by law, “to establish national ambient air quality standards for certain common and widespread pollutants based on the latest science” – meaning greenhouse gases.

The Supreme Court justices seated for a formal portrait. — The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts in 2007 included seven justices appointed by Republican presidents. Front row, left to right: Anthony M. Kennedy (appointed by Ronald Reagan), John Paul Stevens (Gerald Ford), John Roberts (George W. Bush), Antonin Scalia (Reagan) and David Souter (George H.W. Bush). Standing, from left: Stephen Breyer (Bill Clinton), Clarence Thomas (George H.W. Bush), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton) and Samuel Alito Jr. (George W. Bush).
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

The EPA was required to follow formal procedures – including reviewing the scientific research, assessing the risks and taking public comment – and then determine whether the observed and projected harms were sufficient to justify publishing an “endangerment finding.”

That process took two years. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on Dec. 7, 2009, that the then-current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – threatened the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Challenges to the finding erupted immediately.

Jackson denied 10 petitions received in 2009-2010 that called on the administration to reconsider the finding.

On June 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the endangerment finding and regulations that the EPA had issued under the Clean Air Act for passenger vehicles and permitting procedures for stationary sources, such as power plants.

This latest challenge is different.

It came directly from the Trump administration without going through normal channels. It was, though, entirely consistent with both the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for the Trump administration and President Donald Trump’s dismissive perspective on climate risk.

Trump’s burden of proof

To legally reverse the 2009 finding, the agency was required to go through the same evaluation process as before. According to conditions outlined in the Clean Air Act, the reversal of the 2009 finding must be justified by a thorough and complete review of the current science and not just be political posturing.

That’s a tough task.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has talked publicly about how he handpicked the five researchers who wrote the scientific research review. A judge has now found that the effort violated the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that agency-chosen panels providing policy advice to the government conduct their work in public.

All five members of the committee had been outspoken critics of mainstream climate science. Their report, released in summer 2025, was widely criticized for inaccuracies in what they referenced and its failure to represent the current science.

Scientific research available today clearly shows that greenhouse gas emissions harm public health and welfare. Importantly, evidence collected since 2009 is even stronger now than it was when the first endangerment finding was written, approved and implemented.

Map shows many ares with record or near record warm years. — Many locations around the world had record or near-record warm years in 2025. Places with local record warmth in 2025 are home to approximately 770 million people, according to data from Berkeley Earth.
Berkeley Earth, CC BY-NC

For example, a 2025 review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine determined that the evidence supporting the endangerment finding is even stronger today than it was in 2009. A 2019 peer-reviewed assessment of the evidence related to greenhouse gas emissions’ role in climate change came to the same conclusion.

The Sixth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a report produced by hundreds of scientists from around the world, found in 2023 that “adverse impacts of human-caused climate change will continue to intensify.”

Maps show most of the US, especially the West, getting hotter, and the West getting drier. — Summer temperatures have climbed in much of the U.S. and the world as greenhouse gas emissions have risen.
Fifth National Climate Assessment

In other words, greenhouse gas emissions were causing harm in 2009, and the harm is worse now and will be even worse in the future without steps to reduce emissions.

In public comments on the Department of Energy’s problematic 2025 review, a group of climate experts from around the world reached the same conclusion, adding that the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group review “fails to adequately represent this reality.”

What happens now that the EPA has dropped the endangerment finding

As an economist who has studied the effects of climate change for over 40 years, I am concerned that the EPA’s rescinding the endangerment finding will lead to faster efforts to roll back U.S. climate regulations meant to slow climate change.

It will also give the administration cover for further actions that would defund more science programs, stop the collection of valuable data, freeze hiring and discourage a generation of emerging science talent.

Cases typically take years to wind through the courts, but both the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists expect to file lawsuits quickly once the rescission is published in the Federal Register.

Unless a judge issues an injunction, I expect to see an accelerating retreat from U.S. efforts to reduce climate change. For example, consider the removal in early February of the climate science chapter from a new “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence” that advises judges. Republican state attorneys general had complained to the Federal Judicial Center of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine that the manual “treated human influence on climate as fact.” But it is fact. That is not just my opinion. The National Academies itself said so in 2020 and again in 2025.

I see no scenario in which a legal challenge doesn’t end up before the Supreme Court. I would hope that both the enormous amount of scientific evidence and the words in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution would have some significant sway in the court’s considerations. It starts, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,” and includes in its list of principles, “promote the general Welfare.

This article, originally published Feb. 2, 2026, has been updated with EPA rescinding the endangerment finding.

Gary W. Yohe 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. EPA rescinds 2009 endangerment finding, clearing way for Trump to shred more US climate rules – but serious court challenges await – https://theconversation.com/epa-rescinds-2009-endangerment-finding-clearing-way-for-trump-to-shred-more-us-climate-rules-but-serious-court-challenges-await-274194

February 12, 2026

Trump says climate change doesn’t endanger public health – evidence shows it does, from extreme heat to mosquito-borne illnesses

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Jonathan Levy, Professor and Chair, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University

Rising global temperatures are increasing the risk of heat stroke on hot days, among many other human harms. Ronda Churchill/AFP via Getty Images

The Trump administration took a major step in its efforts to unravel America’s climate policies on Feb. 12, 2026. It moved to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, a formal determination that greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide and methane from burning fossil fuels, endanger public health and welfare. But the administration’s arguments in dismissing the health risks of climate change are not only factually wrong, they’re deeply dangerous to Americans’ health and safety.

As physicians, epidemiologists and environmental health scientists, we’ve seen growing evidence of the connections between climate change and harm to people’s health.

Here’s a look at the health risks everyone face from climate change.

Health risks and outcomes related to climate change.
World Health Organization

Extreme heat

Greenhouse gases from vehicles, power plants and other sources accumulate in the atmosphere, trapping heat and holding it close to Earth’s surface like a blanket. Too much of it causes global temperatures to rise, leaving more people exposed to dangerous heat more often.

Most people who get minor heat illnesses will recover, but more extreme exposure, especially without enough hydration and a way to cool off, can be fatal. People who work outside, are elderly or have underlying illnesses such as heart, lung or kidney diseases are often at the greatest risk.

Heat deaths have been rising globally, up 23% from the 1990s to the 2010s, when the average year saw more than half a million heat-related deaths. Here in the U.S., the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome killed hundreds of people.

Climate scientists predict that with advancing climate change, many areas of the world, including U.S. cities such as Miami, Houston, Phoenix and Las Vegas, will confront many more days each year hot enough to threaten human survival.

Extreme weather

Warmer air holds more moisture, so climate change brings increasing rainfall and storm intensity and worsening flooding, as many U.S. communities have experienced in recent years. Warmer ocean water also fuels more powerful hurricanes.

Increased flooding carries health risks, including drownings, injuries and water contamination from human pathogens and toxic chemicals. People cleaning out flooded homes also face risks from mold exposure, injuries and mental distress.

A man carries boxes out of a house that flooded up to its second story. — Flooding from hurricanes and other extreme storms can put people at risk of injuries during the cleanup while also triggering dangerous mold growth on wet wallboard, carpets and fabric. This home flooded up to its second flood during Hurricane Irma in 2017.
Sean Rayford/Getty Images

Climate change also worsens droughts, disrupting food supplies and causing respiratory illness from dust. Rising temperatures and aridity dry out forests and grasslands, making them a setup for wildfires.

Air pollution

Wildfires, along with other climate effects, are worsening air quality around the country.

Wildfire smoke is a toxic soup of microscopic particles (known as fine particulate matter, or PM2.5) that can penetrate deep in the lungs and hazardous compounds such as lead, formaldehyde and dioxins generated when homes, cars and other materials burn at high temperatures. Smoke plumes can travel thousands of miles downwind and trigger heart attacks and elevate lung cancer risks, among other harms.

Meanwhile, warmer conditions favor the formation of ground-level ozone, a heart and lung irritant. Burning of fossil fuels also generates dangerous air pollutants that cause a long list of health problems, including heart attacks, strokes, asthma flare-ups and lung cancer.

Infectious diseases

Because they are cold-blooded organisms, insects are directly influenced by temperature. So with rising temperatures, mosquito biting rates rise as well. Warming also accelerates the development of disease agents that mosquitoes transmit.

Mosquito-borne dengue fever has turned up in Florida, Texas, Hawaii, Arizona and California. New York state just saw its first locally acquired case of chikungunya virus, also transmitted by mosquitoes.

A world map shows where mosquitos are most likely to transmit the dengue virus — As global temperatures rise, regions are becoming more suitable for mosquitoes to transmit dengue virus. The map shows a suitability scale, with red areas already suitable for dengue transmissions and yellow areas becoming more suitable.
Taishi Nakase, et al., 2022, CC BY

And it’s not just insect-borne infections. Warmer temperatures increase diarrhea and foodborne illness from Vibrio cholerae and other bacteria and heavy rainfall increases sewage-contaminated stormwater overflows into lakes and streams. At the other water extreme, drought in the desert Southwest increases the risk of coccidioidomycosis, a fungal infection known as valley fever.

Other impacts

Climate change threatens health in numerous other ways. Longer pollen seasons increase allergen exposures. Lower crop yields reduce access to nutritious foods.

Mental health also suffers, with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress following disasters, and increased rates of violent crime and suicide tied to high-temperature days.

A older man holds a door for a woman at a cooling center. — New York and many other cities now open cooling centers during heat waves to help residents, particularly older adults who might not have air conditioning at home, stay safe during the hottest parts of the day.
Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images

Young children, older adults, pregnant women and people with preexisting medical conditions are among the highest-risk groups. Lower-income people also face greater risk because of higher rates of chronic disease, higher exposures to climate hazards and fewer resources for protection, medical care and recovery from disasters.

Policy-based evidence-making

The evidence linking climate change with health has grown considerably since 2009. Today, it is incontrovertible.

Studies show that heat, air pollution, disease spread and food insecurity linked to climate change are worsening and costing millions of lives around the world each year. This evidence also aligns with Americans’ lived experiences. Anybody who has fallen ill during a heat wave, struggled while breathing wildfire smoke or been injured cleaning up from a hurricane knows that climate change can threaten human health.

Yet the Trump administration is willfully ignoring this evidence in proclaiming that climate change does not endanger health.

Its move to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, which underpins many climate regulations, fits with a broader set of policy measures, including cutting support for renewable energy and subsidizing fossil fuel industries that endanger public health. In addition to rescinding the endangerment finding, the Trump administration also moved to roll back emissions limits on vehicles – the leading source of U.S. carbon emissions and a major contributor to air pollutants such as PM2.5 and ozone.

It’s not just about endangerment

The evidence is clear: Climate change endangers human health. But there’s a flip side to the story.

When countries work to reduce the causes of climate change, they help tackle some of the world’s biggest health challenges. Cleaner vehicles and cleaner electricity mean cleaner air – and less heart and lung disease. More walking and cycling on safe sidewalks and bike paths mean more physical activity and lower chronic disease risks. The list goes on. By confronting climate change, we promote good health.

To really make America healthy, in our view, the nation should acknowledge the facts behind the endangerment finding and double down on our transition from fossil fuels to a healthy, clean energy future.

This article includes material from a story originally published Nov. 12, 2025.

Jonathan Levy receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Federal Aviation Administration, the City of Boston, the Masschusetts Office of the Attorney General, and the Mosaic Foundation.

Howard Frumkin has no financial conflicts of interest to report. He is a member of advisory boards (or equivalent committees) for the Planetary Health Alliance; the Harvard Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment; the Medical Society Consortium on Climate Change and Health; the Global Consortium on Climate and Health Education; the Yale Center on Climate Change and Health; and EcoAmerica’s Climate for Health program, and chairs the National Academy of Medicine Committee on the Roadmap for Transformative Action to Achieve Health for All at Net-Zero Emissions—all voluntary unpaid positions.

Jonathan Patz receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He is affiliated with the Medical Society Consortium for Climate and Health, and its affiliate Healthy Climate Wisconsin.

Vijay Limaye is affiliated with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

– ref. Trump says climate change doesn’t endanger public health – evidence shows it does, from extreme heat to mosquito-borne illnesses – https://theconversation.com/trump-says-climate-change-doesnt-endanger-public-health-evidence-shows-it-does-from-extreme-heat-to-mosquito-borne-illnesses-275619

February 12, 2026

Ukraine: if elections are held this spring, who might be the next president?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is under intense pressure from the US to take his country to the polls as early as this spring. Donald Trump is demanding elections as a condition for American security guarantees for Ukraine against any future Russian invasion.

Zelensky has faced persistent calls from Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and at times from Trump as well, to hold an election. His term expired in 2024, but the country’s constitution forbids elections during wartime. So to schedule a poll will also mean a constitutional change to enable it.

But if the US president gets his way and elections are held later this year, whoever wins and becomes Ukraine’s next president will be faced with the task of managing a country at war and perhaps steering the nation towards an uncertain peace.

It is hard to predict who might stand for the presidency – under the current circumstances, no one is declaring their candidacy. But it’s reasonable to assume that Zelensky would put himself forward for a second term. If so, he cannot be expecting to coast to victory as he did in 2019 when he won more than 74% of the popular vote.

While Zelensky has been celebrated in the west as a hero for his wartime leadership, his popularity has been damaged by a series of corruption scandals. In November 2025, several government officials and business leaders with close connections to Zelensky – including the justice minister and a former prime minister – were accused of stealing US$100 million (£73 million) from Ukraine’s energy sector by Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies.

Just a few months earlier, in July, widespread protests erupted against a new law that would place those same anti-corruption agencies under the control of an official appointed by Zelensky. This move was widely seen as an attempt to enable the president to stop any inconvenient investigations in their tracks and shield his associates from prosecution.

Zelensky acted quickly to distance himself from both of these scandals. He reversed the controversial legislation in the summer and has called for the resignation of serving officials named in the energy corruption investigation. But these events have tarnished his reputation at home.

According to surveys conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, trust in Zelensky dropped from 74% in May 2025 to 59% in December. Although incumbents in other countries might look with envy at these figures, only 26% “completely” trust him and would like to see him continue as president. The rest indicated that they would prefer a change at the top of Ukraine’s political leadership. That said, a recent poll had his support at 30.9%, with only one other potential candidate within touching distance.

That potential candidate is Valerii Zaluzhnyi, whose is often described as a potential leader and whose support was measured at 27.7% in the poll mentioned above. Currently Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK, Zaluzhnyi owes his high profile to his former position as head of Ukraine’s armed forces. He served in that role from 2021 until Zelensky replaced him in February 2024.

The official reason Zelensky gave for the dismissal was the need for new ideas in the military, but there was a suspicion that Zaluzhnyi, widely regarded as a war hero for leading the resistance to Russia’s mass invasion, was becoming too popular. Indeed, a poll conducted in July 2025 found that 73% of Ukrainians said they trusted him, making him the country’s most trusted public figure. Zaluzhnyi has refused to be drawn on whether he might stand for the presidency, but there is widespread speculation that he is simply biding his time.

Another possible candidate whose reputation was built by his wartime leadership is Kyrylo Budanov. Recently appointed by Zelensky as his chief of staff, Budanov led Ukraine’s military intelligence since 2020 and is credited with its effective use of drones to strike targets deep into Russian territory as well as Russian-occupied Ukraine. Like Zaluzhnyi, Budanov has not indicated that he would stand for elected office. Unlike Zaluzhnyi, Budanov has not made a breakthrough in the polls.

Veteran political rivals

A few veterans of past presidential campaigns might throw their hats into the ring again, although neither is likely to be a front runner.

Petro Poroshenko was Ukraine’s president before Zelensky, serving from 2014 until 2019. Since 2021 he has been fighting charges of treason and, more recently, has been placed under sanction by Zelensky.

Charges against him focus on alleged pro-Russian political and economic interests, such as his connection with the now-banned Party of the Regions and his slowness to sell off his assets in Russia and Russian-occupied Ukraine. He denies any wrongdoing and has called the sanctions “politically motivated” and “unconstitutional”.

Yulia Tymoshenko was a leading figure in Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution. She is a former prime minister, leader of the “Fatherhood” political party and a populist politician who has a strong following among rural voters, especially older women.

But she has recently been charged with offering bribes to lawmakers in what has been reported as an attempt to undermine the ruling Servant of the People Party. She denies the charges. She is only polling in the single digits.

Problems with a wartime election

It is important to remember that Moscow demands fresh elections in Ukraine as a condition of any peace deal. It is unlikely that Russia expects a pro-Russian candidate to be successful and take the country in a more Russia-friendly direction. But the entire process of holding fair elections in Ukraine anytime soon is fraught with difficulties that would offer opportunities for Russia to exploit.

For example, the organisational challenge of creating accurate electoral registers that include the millions of displaced Ukrainians – many of them living abroad – would invite challenges to the fairness of the election and the legitimacy of the results.

The political divisions that inevitably come to the surface during election campaigns would provide ideal grounds for stirring up dissension and dissatisfaction – a well-established practice undertaken by the Russian security services – and thereby undermining the solidarity of Ukrainian society.

So regardless of who becomes Ukraine’s next president, if the election goes ahead in the coming months as Donald Trump is demanding, the winner in a broader sense may be Russia.

Jennifer Mathers 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. Ukraine: if elections are held this spring, who might be the next president? – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-if-elections-are-held-this-spring-who-might-be-the-next-president-275702

February 12, 2026

Cambio de paradigma en la determinación sexual de los mamíferos: el papel del hierro

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Federico Zurita Martínez, Profesor del Departamento de Genética. Imparto docencia en Genética y en el Master en "Cultura de Paz, Conflictos, Educación y Derechos Humanos" en la Universidad de Granada., Universidad de Granada

León y leona. Nicholas Ceglia / Unsplash. , CC BY

Como en todas las especies con reproducción sexual, en los mamíferos existen dos tipos distintos de individuos: machos y hembras, ambos imprescindibles para que sea posible la reproducción. La diferencia esencial entre esos dos sexos está en los gametos, que son las células que se fusionan y dan lugar al nuevo individuo. Las hembras generan ovocitos (óvulos), mientras que los machos producen espermatozoides, mucho más pequeños y mucho más numerosos, lo que hace que el potencial reproductivo de los machos sea muy superior al de las hembras.

Corte de un ovocito en el centro de un folículo primario.
Ed Uthman / Wikimedia Commons., CC BY

Ambos tipos de gametos coinciden, eso sí, en que portan la mitad de los cromosomas que tienen todas las otras células del organismo, que en el caso de humanos son 46, y 23 por tanto en los gametos. Pero ¿qué hace que un embrión se desarrolle como macho o como hembra?

Hembras por defecto

En 1947, un endocrinólogo francés, Alfred Jost , castró embriones de conejo y observó que todos esos embriones se desarrollaban como hembras; en ausencia de gónadas, no había machos. Es como si el sexo femenino fuera el sexo “por defecto”.

En un segundo experimento, Jost implantó testículos a esos embriones de conejo a los que previamente había extirpado las gónadas, y observó que estos embriones se desarrollaban todos como machos. Estaba claro entonces que para el desarrollo masculino sí era imprescindible la presencia de testículo funcional.

¿Cuestión de cromosomas?

En 1956, Joe Hin Tjio y Albert Levan establecieron definitivamente que los seres humanos tenemos 46 cromosomas y que los hombres son el sexo que posee dos cromosomas sexuales diferentes, X e Y, mientras que las mujeres tienen dos cromosomas X. A partir de este hallazgo, se asumió que la presencia de dos cromosomas X era necesaria para el desarrollo femenino, mientras que la combinación de un cromosoma X y un cromosoma Y determinaba el desarrollo masculino.

Sin embargo, solo un año después, se descubrieron anomalías en el número de cromosomas que demostraron que la realidad era más compleja. Los individuos con XXY (síndrome de Klinefelter) eran hombres a pesar de tener dos cromosomas X, y aquellos con un solo cromosoma X (X0, síndrome de Turner) eran mujeres. Lo que se concluía de esos descubrimientos era que la presencia de cromosoma Y conducía al desarrollo masculino y la ausencia de cromosoma Y conducía al desarrollo femenino.

En los laboratorios donde trabajábamos en este campo, se produjo un hito, cuando Andrew H. Sinclair y colaboradores publicaron el aislamiento y la secuencia de un pequeño fragmento de ADN que codificaba para una proteína reguladora. A la secuencia se le llamó Sry (por sex-determining region Y).

La confirmación de que ese gen era realmente el responsable de que un individuo fuera un macho, vino solo un año después y desde el mismo laboratorio.

Un solo gen decide el sexo en los mamíferos

En un trabajo espléndido y ya clásico, el biólogo australiano Peter Koopman y su equipo lograron algo extraordinario: a partir de ratones cromosómicamente hembras (XX) obtuvieron machos fenotípicos –de sexo masculino según sus genitales internos y externos, la expresión de caracteres sexuales secundarios y el comportamiento–.

Para ello, introdujeron mediante transgénesis el gen Sry en los cigotos–primera célula única que se forma tras la fecundación– XX y esos embriones se desarrollaron como machos.

Lo más asombroso es que estos machos no solo desarrollaron testículos y características físicas masculinas, sino que también mostraban comportamientos reproductivos típicos de los machos.

Este trabajo confirmó de manera definitiva que el gen Sry es suficiente para el desarrollo de los testículos y, por tanto del cuerpo masculino, incluyendo incluso ciertos comportamientos.

El papel de los estímulos externos

Se sabe que, en ciertos peces, un individuo puede ser macho en un contexto “social” y transformarse en hembra si ese contexto cambia. El ejemplo más notorio es el pez payaso. Por otra parte, en ciertos reptiles, la temperatura a la que se incuba el huevo determina el sexo del individuo.

*Amphiprion ocellaris* o pez payaso puede cambiar de sexo según condicionantes ambientales.
Wikimedia Commons., CC BY

Sin embargo, en mamíferos, como hemos visto, el sexo del individuo lo deciden sus genes y cromosomas y, por tanto, está genéticamente determinado; no depende de estímulos externos. Eso era lo aceptado y así lo hemos enseñado en la universidad durante los últimos 40 años. Era paradigma. Y paradigma fue hasta el pasado 29 de junio de 2025.

En ese año, se publicó un artículo en Nature, de esos llamados a convertirse en un clásico, precisamente por el cambio de paradigma que supone.

Un punto de inflexión

En dicho estudio, Naoki Okashita y colaboradores evidenciaron un aumento sustancial de hierro (Fe++) en gónadas de ratón macho (gónadas XY).

La expresión correcta de los genes es un proceso muy complejo que está regulado a muchos niveles distintos. Okashita y su equipo han mostrado que, en testículos embrionarios (XY), la disminución de la cantidad de hierro (Fe++) acaba provocando un silenciamiento del gen Sry.

Al inhibir la expresión del gen Sry, no se activa la ruta de desarrollo testicular y, reactivamente, se activan los genes de la ruta alternativa, esto es, los genes que controlan el desarrollo ovárico.

Según esto, el desarrollo correcto de la gónada –ovarios o testículos– según su constitución cromosómica es dependiente de los niveles de Fe++. Una emocionante variable nueva que añadir a la ecuación del sexo.

Las personas firmantes no son asalariadas, ni consultoras, ni poseen acciones, ni reciben financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y han declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado anteriormente.

– ref. Cambio de paradigma en la determinación sexual de los mamíferos: el papel del hierro – https://theconversation.com/cambio-de-paradigma-en-la-determinacion-sexual-de-los-mamiferos-el-papel-del-hierro-273115

February 12, 2026

De la lista de la compra a un ‘whatsapp’ a los abuelos: cómo mejorar la escritura de los más pequeños en casa

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Carmen Álvarez-Moreno, Personal docente e investigador en formación, Universidad de León

Escribir no es solo una cuestión escolar o laboral, sino una herramienta de comunicación esencial en nuestro día a día. A partir del momento en que los niños desarrollan esta habilidad y empiezan a practicarla en la escuela, ¿cómo podemos ayudarlos a mejorar?

El colegio tiene un papel evidente, pero no actúa solo. Las leyes educativas insisten en algo clave: familia y escuela son un equipo. De hecho, gran parte del aprendizaje de la escritura ocurre en casa. Entonces, ¿se puede y se debe trabajar la escritura desde el hogar?

Para responder a estas preguntas, en un estudio de próxima publicación hemos revisado estudios científicos internacionales que analizan el papel de las familias en el aprendizaje de la escritura infantil.

¿Qué se puede escribir en casa?

En casa se escribe más de lo que imaginamos, y no solo cuando toca hacer deberes. Elaborar la lista de la compra, enviar un mensaje a los abuelos o escribir invitaciones de cumpleaños son prácticas informales de escritura que surgen de manera natural en los hogares y que, según la ciencia, contribuyen al aprendizaje escritor de los niños y las niñas.

Pero, además de esas actividades cotidianas de escritura, las familias, aunque no sean profesionales de la educación, también realizan con sus hijos tareas de escritura formal. Es frecuente que en las casas se practique la caligrafía y la ortografía. Cuando los niños empiezan el aprendizaje de la escritura, las familias les enseñan a sostener bien el lápiz, formar letras o escribir su nombre, insistiendo en la importancia de tener una “letra bonita”.

También intentan que el niño aprenda a escribir sin faltas de ortografía. ¿Cuántas veces les habremos dicho a nuestros hijos “delante de P y B, M pondré”? Pues bien, la ciencia dice que estas prácticas de escritura ayudan a que los niños tenga mejor letra y cometan menos faltas.

Ayudar con textos más complicados

Algunos estudios señalan que las familias pueden colaborar en tareas de escritura más complicadas, como la redacción de textos. Los familiares pueden ayudar a los peques a pensar qué escribir, organizar sus ideas o revisar su texto. La planificación, redacción y revisión textual son procesos escritores que implican una gran carga mental para los peques y que pueden resolver mejor con ayuda adulta.

Leer más:
Por qué no hay prisa para que los niños empiecen a usar el lápiz en la escuela

Cómo hacerlo

La evidencia científica revisada nos dice que no solo importa qué actividades de escritura hacemos en casa, sino cómo acompañamos a los peques durante ellas. Imaginemos que nuestra hija está escribiendo y hace una letra incompleta. En ese momento le decimos: “A esa letra le falta algo, ¿qué será? Fíjate como la hago yo”. Haciendo esto, estaríamos actuando como guía y modelo de escritura, ayudando al peque a pensar, revisar y a aprender el procedimiento escritor. Pues bien, eso es exactamente lo que definen los estudios como “apoyos procedimentales”, muy eficaces para ayudar a los niños en el aprendizaje de la escritura.

Pero ¿es necesario estar continuamente escribiendo en casa y ayudando al niño durante sus tareas de escritura? La investigación más reciente confirma que no. Con alguna actividad de escritura “casera” a la semana, los niños mejoran, aunque es importante que los familiares muestren interés por lo que ha escrito el niño, lo lean, lo expongan o lo feliciten. Estos sencillos gestos, identificados a nivel científico como apoyos motivacionales, animan al peque hacia la escritura y facilitan su aprendizaje.

Leer más:
Así se aprende a escribir con ciencia pero sin libros de texto

¿Puedo ayudar a escribir si no se me da bien?

No todos los adultos dominamos la escritura; ¿podemos aún así ayudar a los pequeños de la familia?

Algunos estudios revisados en un trabajo de próxima publicación analizan a familias de diferentes niveles socioeconómicos, con estructuras diversas y disponibilidad temporal variable y confirman que estos aspectos pueden facilitar o dificultar su implicación en la escritura infantil.

No obstante, un elemento clave son las creencias de los padres sobre la escritura. Si consideramos que es una habilidad importante para nuestros hijos, entonces tenemos la clave: ¡animémosles a escribir, escribamos juntos y escribámosles! Somos su mejor modelo.

Carmen Álvarez-Moreno recibe fondos de recibe fondos de MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/FEDER, UE, para financiar el proyecto investigador PID2021-124011NB-I00 del que forma parte este trabajo

PATRICIA ROBLEDO RAMÓN recibe fondos de MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/FEDER, UE, para financiar el proyecto investigador PID2021-124011NB-I00 del que forma parte este trabajo.

– ref. De la lista de la compra a un ‘whatsapp’ a los abuelos: cómo mejorar la escritura de los más pequeños en casa – https://theconversation.com/de-la-lista-de-la-compra-a-un-whatsapp-a-los-abuelos-como-mejorar-la-escritura-de-los-mas-pequenos-en-casa-271961

February 12, 2026

El Gobierno español regula el ‘true crime’: ¿protección a las víctimas o recortes a los creadores?

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Marta Sánchez Esparza, Periodista y docente, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

Fotograma de la serie _Las cintas de Rosa Peral_. Netflix

El Gobierno de España ha aprobado en primera vuelta un anteproyecto de ley sobre derecho al honor y a la intimidad personal que, entre otras cuestiones, pretende regular los true crime para proteger a las víctimas.

Esta iniciativa presenta una doble cara. Por una parte, facilita que las personas que han sufrido un delito puedan actuar contra las series que atenten contra su honor o su intimidad. Por otra, ¿puede un gobierno controlar las historias que producen los medios? ¿Hasta qué punto puede limitar los derechos de creadores y productores de contenidos? ¿Dónde está el equilibrio?

Los derechos al honor, la intimidad y la propia imagen ya estaban protegidos en el artículo 18.1 de la Constitución española, y su ejercicio estaba articulado en el ámbito civil mediante la Ley orgánica 1/1982, que ahora será derogada por obsoleta.

El contexto digital ha generado situaciones inimaginables en la España de los años 80, como la aparición de imágenes generadas gracias a la inteligencia artificial generativa, la “resurrección” de personas gracias al clonado de sus voces o imágenes, los deepfakes o el consumo masivo de determinados contenidos a través de las plataformas.

La nueva norma, que afronta ahora el trámite de exposición pública, se propone proteger el derecho al honor, a la intimidad personal y familiar y a la propia imagen de las personas, al igual que lo hacía la ley de mayo de 1982. Por ello detalla en su artículo 7.1 toda una lista de conductas que lesionarían estos derechos.

Obstáculos al lucro del delincuente

Entre esas conductas figura que alguien que ha sido condenado aproveche su delito de alguna manera a través del true crime para obtener lucro o notoriedad pública, dañando así de nuevo a la víctima. Es decir, la nueva ley quiere poner obstáculos firmes a la tendencia, cada vez más extendida, de dar voz al criminal para narrar las historias que alimentan el género, cuyo consumo se ha disparado en las últimas décadas.

El true crime se ha convertido en un fenómeno de masas, y también en un campo de experimentación para la construcción de versiones y relatos alternativos en torno a crímenes y escándalos, donde cada vez es más frecuente encontrarse con acusados y condenados que tratan de empatizar con la audiencia.

El Rey del Cachopo o Las cintas de Rosa Peral son ejemplos de producciones españolas donde dos personas enjuiciadas y condenadas por asesinatos atroces aparecen ante la cámara ofreciendo su propia versión y mostrando emociones y aspectos de su vida personal con el fin de cambiar la percepción social sobre lo acontecido.

El caso de Daniel Sancho, condenado a prisión en Tailandia por el asesinato de un cirujano, o el de Ana Julia Quedaza, en prisión por el asesinato del pequeño Gabriel Cruz en Almería, revelan que el riesgo de que asesinos convictos se lucren gracias a sus crímenes es algo completamente real.

En EE. UU., un caso parecido lo protagonizó O.J. Simpson, cuando trató de publicar If I Did It, un relato sobre cómo habrían sido los asesinatos si él los hubiera cometido. La justicia paralizó inicialmente el libro y sentenció que los beneficios de la obra fuesen a parar a las víctimas.

En un artículo anterior expusimos los resultados de una investigación sobre cómo la presencia de acusados en el true crime en calidad de narradores altera por completo el enfoque judicial o policial previo y blanquea significativamente la actuación del criminal. Como se ha señalado con acierto, “la historia de Caperucita cambia por completo cuando el narrador es el lobo”.

Y esto es lo que está empezando a pasar en el true crime, con un notable daño sobrevenido a las víctimas. Para evitar esta nueva revictimización de las personas afectadas surge precisamente este intento de regular estas producciones audiovisuales.

Entre los dilemas éticos que suscita el género del true crime, el más grave es sin duda que el criminal se beneficie económica o reputacionalmente de la explotación mediática de su historia, que obtenga un lucro y que el mal se convierta de algún modo en un activo rentable.

Así se regula en EE.UU. y en Reino Unido

De nuevo en Estados Unidos, para hacer frente a ese dilema se aprobaron las Son of Sam Laws –Leyes del Hijo de Sam–, leyes que impiden que el criminal obtenga beneficios de su crimen. Y en el Reino Unido, en 2022 se aprobaron los Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), que permiten la confiscación de cualquier ganancia obtenida como consecuencia de un delito, aplicando la filosofía de “el crimen no paga”.

En este marco, el Gobierno español sigue la estela de otros países en los que se ha determinado que quienes deben ser compensadas por el daño son las víctimas, y no los delincuentes.

Sin embargo, la nueva ley habilita a cualquier persona que se sienta afectada o lesionada por el relato de una historia a reclamar ante la justicia, colocando a los creadores en una posición de vulnerabilidad. ¿Es posible coartar la libertad de expresión y creación de las productoras con este instrumento legal que puede limitar o condicionar su trabajo? Regular un comportamiento lesivo no debe servir para asfixiar el derecho a la información.

En este sentido, el anteproyecto permite a quienes reclaman la vulneración de su derecho al honor y a la intimidad moverse en una zona de ambigüedad que podría fácilmente derivar en autocensura o, peor aún, atar las manos a los profesionales que se dedican a estas producciones.

Habrá que ver si, finalmente, la nueva ley completa su recorrido parlamentario y entra en vigor tal y como está redactada. Habrá que observar cómo se aplica en los órganos judiciales. La necesaria tutela y protección a las víctimas debería servir para potenciar un true crime ético y responsable, pero nunca para cercenar el interés público.

– ref. El Gobierno español regula el ‘true crime’: ¿protección a las víctimas o recortes a los creadores? – https://theconversation.com/el-gobierno-espanol-regula-el-true-crime-proteccion-a-las-victimas-o-recortes-a-los-creadores-273544

February 12, 2026

El virus de la peste porcina africana no se ‘escapó’ del laboratorio

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Ignacio López-Goñi, Catedrático de Microbiología. Miembro de la Sociedad Española de Microbiología (SEM), Universidad de Navarra

El pasado 28 de noviembre de 2025 se confirmó la detección de un brote de peste porcina africana en Cataluña, lo que supuso la primera notificación del virus en España desde noviembre de 1994. Como consecuencia, España ha perdido temporalmente el estatus de país libre de la enfermedad que mantenía desde hace treinta años.

Acaba de publicarse el informe inicial sobre los pormenores del brote, realizado por el Comité Científico Asesor del Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. En él se analizan las posibles causas de la entrada del virus, su evolución y las medidas a adoptar para su contención.

Dicho informe es preliminar y no permite conocer con certeza el origen del patógeno, pero sí documenta la caracterización molecular y sugiere algunas conclusiones que permiten responder a preguntas tan interesantes como si el virus de la peste porcina africana (VPPA) detectado en noviembre se originó por una liberación accidental desde un centro de investigación.

Caracterización genética del virus

En el informe se describe la caracterización genética del virus detectado en jabalíes en Cataluña en noviembre 2025. Como su genoma es de gran tamaño (alrededor de 170 genes) y presenta una alta homogeneidad, se aplicó el esquema de caracterización de la Unión Europea. Este consiste en un análisis escalonado (distintos niveles) que permite aumentar progresivamente la resolución genética para responder a preguntas epidemiológicas complejas.

La primera pregunta es a qué genotipo corresponde el virus (nivel 1). La clasificación global se basa en el análisis parcial de un gen concreto: el B646L, que codifica para la proteína p72. Con esta técnica se han descrito hasta 24 genotipos distintos del VPPA.

Pues bien, el virus que ha llegado a España fue clasificado dentro del genotipo II, el mismo que lleva años circulando por Europa desde que salió de Georgia en 2007. Esto no sorprendió a los investigadores porque es el único presente en la actualidad en el continente. Pero ese dato no es suficiente para dilucidar si procede de Italia, Europa del Este o de otro lugar. Es como saber que alguien pertenece a una familia muy grande, pero ignorar exactamente de qué rama familiar es.

Para afinar más, se realizó un segundo análisis de seis pequeñas regiones genéticas distintas (nivel 2) buscando pequeñas diferencias (mutaciones). Esto permite distinguir hasta 28 subgrupos dentro del genotipo II. El virus español tenía casi el mismo perfil que la cepa de referencia Georgia 2007/1 salvo por una pequeña mutación nunca antes descrita en la región intergénica 9R/10R. Por eso, el aislamiento español corresponde a un nuevo subgrupo genético del genotipo II: el grupo 29.

Para alcanzar la máxima resolución genética, el siguiente paso (nivel 3) supone ya la secuenciación completa del genoma del virus, como si se leyera el libro completo y no solo algunos capítulos. Al compararlo con la cepa de referencia, el genoma del virus español era más corto, presentaba una gran deleción (de unos 10 000 nucleótidos, las “letras” del código genético) en la región izquierda del genoma, entre las posiciones 10 264–20 087.

En otras palabras, el genoma del virus español ha perdido un fragmento grande de su ADN que implica la supresión de al menos 21 genes. Esos genes no son imprescindibles para que el virus se multiplique, pero sí podrían influir en cómo interactúa con el sistema inmune y en su comportamiento biológico.

Además, se identificaron 18 mutaciones puntuales o SNP (siglas de Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) y 13 inserciones y deleciones cortas distribuidas a lo largo de todo el genoma. Esto sugiere que este virus presenta una firma genómica propia y es una variante genéticamente diferenciada del resto de VPPA conocidos hasta ahora.

Comparación con las cepas de laboratorio

Por último, se comparó la secuencia del genoma del virus español con 81 muestras (12 aislados virales históricos de las cepas Georgia 2007 y Armenia 2007 y 69 muestras clínicas procedentes de infecciones experimentales) del laboratorio de investigación IRTA-CREsA, cercano al lugar donde se detectó el brote de la enfermedad en jabalíes en noviembre de 2025.

Los análisis realizados por organismos independientes y mediante metodologías complementarias demostraron que ninguna de las muestras analizadas presentaba la gran deleción de unos 10 000 nucleótidos observada en el virus de campo. Además, tampoco compartían el conjunto de mutaciones distintivas del aislado español.

En todas las muestras, las secuencias obtenidas eran iguales a las cepas de referencia (Georgia 2007 o Armenia 2007) y no presentaban evidencia de haber adquirido ninguna de las deleciones o mutaciones encontradas en la firma genómica del virus detectado en Cataluña en noviembre de 2025.

Según el informe, estos resultados demuestran que el virus causante del brote de peste porcina africana en Cataluña es genéticamente diferente de los virus en el laboratorio del IRTA-CREsA y, por tanto, no se originó por una liberación accidental desde el centro de investigación.

No toda Europa está igual de bien vigilada genéticamente

Hasta 2025 se ha notificado la presencia del VPPA en 25 países europeos y solo Bélgica y Suecia han conseguido erradicar el virus de su territorio. Uno de los mayores problemas que existe para los estudios epidemiológicos es que en muchos países del continente no constan datos de la caracterización genética del VPPA, lo que limita mucho la interpretación de su distribución real.

Por ejemplo, en países como Hungría, Serbia, Ucrania, Rusia, Armenia, Azerbaiyán, Bielorrusia, Georgia, Lituania o Polonia no hay datos relevantes o son muy limitados de la circulación, dispersión y caracterización el VPPA. Por tanto, el patógeno aislado en Cataluña en noviembre de 2025 podría ser realmente nuevo… o podría existir en algún país donde no se hayan secuenciado suficientes virus.

Entonces, ¿cuál es su origen?

En pocas palabras: no se sabe. Aunque en el informe se discuten varias posibilidades (introducción deliberada del virus desde focos activos europeos o que fuera transportado por actividades humanas), la hipótesis más probable sigue siendo la llegada accidental mediante residuos o restos de alimentos contaminados, la llamada “hipótesis del bocadillo”. El virus es muy resistente en materia orgánica y a bajas temperaturas, y así ha entrado en Europa en otras ocasiones.

El informe es preliminar y demuestra que es necesario continuar con la vigilancia epidemiológica, la caracterización molecular y la gestión integrada de la fauna silvestre para proteger las explotaciones porcinas y minimizar el impacto sanitario y socioeconómico.

La versión original de este artículo fue publicada en el blog del autor, microBIO.

Ignacio López-Goñi no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. El virus de la peste porcina africana no se ‘escapó’ del laboratorio – https://theconversation.com/el-virus-de-la-peste-porcina-africana-no-se-escapo-del-laboratorio-275838