Vaccine hesitancy: How social and technological issues converged to spawn mistrust

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Emanuele Blasioli, PhD Candidate in Management Science, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University

The rise in vaccine-preventable diseases around the world is threatening decades of progress in public health and putting millions of people at risk.

The decline in vaccination coverage in the United States illustrates the global problem. Rates of most routine vaccinations recommended for children by age 24 months by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which focus on 15 potentially serious illnesses, have declined.

Canada has not been spared from this phenomenon. As of July 19, there have been 4,206 measles cases (3,878 confirmed, 328 probable) in 2025 reported by 10 jurisdictions (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Québec and Saskatchewan).

This decline in vaccine coverage is often attributed to misinformation and disinformation. As data analytics researchers, we used operations research techniques to understand why people are vaccine-hesitant. In our study, we explore how anti-vaccination sentiments and attitudes can be better understood through an integrated approach that combines social network analysis with insights into psychological reactance and the influence of eHealth literacy on health-related behaviours.

So what fuels skepticism about vaccines? It’s a complex blend of personal, social and environmental factors.

How our brains decide (and often get it wrong)

People typically use mental shortcuts, known as heuristics, to simplify complex issues.

The purpose is to minimize analytical efforts and speed up decision-making, which can sacrifice accuracy for the sake of efficiency. This results in distortions known as cognitive biases, which influence judgment and decision-making.

Vaccination decisions are influenced by these processes in the same way as any other decision.




Read more:
How cognitive biases and adverse events influence vaccine decisions (maybe even your own)


Skepticism toward vaccines has often been associated with fears related to possible side-effects. These fears are fuelled by our broad tendency to overestimate negative consequences, a mechanism known as risk-perception bias.

A recent study published in Nature Scientific Reports confirmed that vaccine-hesitant individuals are more sensitive to risk, and give undue weight to potential side-effects.

Another study, from the journal Vaccine: X, looked at cognitive biases related to vaccine hesitancy and revealed four factors significantly associated with hesitancy. These are:

  • fear of vaccine side-effects (skepticism factor),
  • carelessness about the risks of not being vaccinated (denial factor),
  • optimistic attitude, believing they are less at risk of illness (optimistic bias factor) and
  • preference for natural products (naturalness bias factor).

Existing beliefs can also significantly interfere with evaluations and decisions, since people are inclined to seek information that reinforces and confirms their convictions. Confirmation bias interferes with the rational evaluation of evidence related to vaccine safety and efficacy.

The effect of this bias becomes particularly relevant when analyzing how susceptible individuals are to misinformation — a major barrier to vaccine uptake.

The myth of rationality

Assuming human beings can make fully rational decisions is helpful for developing simulations and models, like those in game theory. Game theory is a powerful analytical tool often used in operations research to understand phenomena arising from the interaction of multiple decision-makers, allowing us to predict the possible scenarios that may unfold.

Insights from behavioural economics and cognitive psychology suggest that any assumption of rationality is often wildly optimistic.

Bounded rationality” describes the constraints within which reason operates. Human judgments suffer from a scarcity of information, time limitations and our limited ability to analyze.

Still, even the most effective information would not be enough to convince all vaccine-hesitant individuals. In some cases, it can have the opposite effect.

Understanding psychological and attitudinal predictors of vaccine hesitancy allows us to compare their influence in different contexts. Contexts define the environmental background (or setting) in which individuals decide about the vaccine.

These comparisons show that thought patterns and attitudes that feed into vaccine hesitancy can be modified, unlike stable risk factors, including demographic factors, such as unemployment, lower education, younger age, rural residency, sex and migrant status.

Change in vaccination decision over time

Immunization behaviours evolve over time, influenced by social dynamics. Researchers have studied why voluntary vaccination programs for childhood disease sometimes fail, showing how self-interested decision-making leads to lower vaccination rates and prevents the complete eradication of the illnesses that vaccination could otherwise control.

Assuming parents can make perfectly rational decisions, the study outlined two scenarios:

  1. The benefit of vaccination for their child, accepting there might be some risk of side-effects;

  2. The benefit of not vaccinating, knowing they can avoid side-effects, and hoping their child won’t catch the disease.

Whenever these choices seem equally good to parents, the researchers found there is a critical drop in vaccination uptake, especially for highly contagious diseases.

Another study investigated why vaccination rates swing wildly up and down over time instead of remaining steady.

The authors focused on how people copy each other’s behaviour and looked at two actual vaccine scares that happened in England and Wales, one in the 1970s with whooping cough vaccine and another in the 1990s with the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

They found that parents oscillated between vaccinating and not as they followed the herd in whatever choice seemed safest, causing boom-and-bust cycles and unstable community protection from the targeted illnesses.

Such dynamics can also result in localized pockets of under-vaccination that benefit the unprotected through herd immunity, but also risk unvaccinated groups becoming high-risk clusters if that protection deteriorates.

Echo chambers in social media

The COVID-19 pandemic has proven how damaging misinformation, disinformation, information voids and information gaps can be to public health, including immunization coverage and vaccine hesitancy.

The relationship between social media misinformation and vaccine hesitancy can be understood by looking at two elements: how much individuals are exposed to it and how persuasive social media is.

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine-skeptical content on social media had a significant negative effect and fuelled doubts about vaccine safety and effectiveness, particularly when not subjected to flagging by fact-checkers.

The impact of unflagged vaccine-skeptical content in driving vaccine hesitancy was estimated to be 46 times greater than flagged misinformation content.

Factually accurate but potentially misleading content — such as a rare instance where a young, healthy individual passed away shortly after being vaccinated — also plays a critical role in driving up vaccine hesitancy.

In our own research, we and our collaborators argue that investigating the role of social media networks can help us develop new strategies to promote and increase evidence-based vaccine literacy.

The Conversation

Elkafi Hassini received Discovery and Alliance grants funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada that supported this research.

Emanuele Blasioli 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. Vaccine hesitancy: How social and technological issues converged to spawn mistrust – https://theconversation.com/vaccine-hesitancy-how-social-and-technological-issues-converged-to-spawn-mistrust-261938

Pets don’t necessarily improve their owners’ well-being

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Christophe Gagné, PhD candidate, Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

People often turn to pets to boost their mood and find companionship. Improving well-being and reducing loneliness are among the most cited reasons for adopting an animal companion.

But even though the belief that pets bring many benefits to their owners is widespread, research shows that having a pet is not a panacea for bolstering human psychological well-being.

Despite this, pets are often portrayed in the news and on social media as effective solutions to reduce stress and loneliness, reflecting a popular belief in their health benefits. This can lead people to adopt pets without fully considering the responsibilities and demands involved, which can have negative consequences for both themselves and their pets.

As social psychologists studying human-pet relationships, we take a more nuanced approach, examining when, how and for whom pets can — or cannot — enhance well-being.

What the research says

Many studies have found that pet owners are less anxious, lonely and stressed out compared to people who don’t have pets. Pet owners also report being more satisfied with their life.

These studies often catch our attention because they tap into something many of us believe: that our pets are good for us. This type of research offers reassurance and validates the deep bond we may feel with our animal companions. But they only tell one side of the story.

Other studies have found no significant link between pet ownership and human well-being. In other words, people with pets don’t necessarily report higher well-being, nor do they have better mental health than those without pets.




Read more:
Dogs may reflect their owners’ stress levels, finds research


Our research into pet ownership in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic was surprising: it found that owning a pet was generally associated with lower well-being and mental health.

The study included both pet owners and those without pets, aiming to compare the two groups on various well-being indicators during the pandemic. Pet owners reported lower well-being than non-pet owners during that time, including higher levels of loneliness.

These inconsistencies across different studies show that the connection between having a pet and feeling good isn’t so straightforward. Our study indicated some of these complexities. For example, compared to owners of other pets, dog owners reported higher well-being.

To make sense of these mixed findings, researchers have started to look more closely at the nature of the relationship between owners and their pets. This approach may help us better understand the factors that influence whether pet ownership is beneficial for our well-being.

The quality of the connection

Just like our relationships with people, our bond with pets is complex. Many aspects of this connection can influence how much we benefit from it. It’s not just having a pet that counts, but how we bond and interact with them.

For example, owners who experience anxiety about being away from their pets or question their pet’s affection — reflecting an insecure attachment to a pet — also report feeling more depressed. Perceiving our pets as less understanding or more insensitive to our needs is also associated with higher levels of depression, anxiety and loneliness.

In contrast, the more people feel that they share characteristics with their pets (for example, loyalty, a mutual love of sleeping), the more likely they are to report higher well-being. Pets are also perceived as living in the present, not dwelling on the past or worrying about the future. Interacting with our animal companions mindfully can help us focus on the present moment as well, which also promotes greater well-being.




Read more:
Do people really resemble their dogs?


By nurturing the positive aspects of our relationships with pets and working through the more difficult ones, we may ease the stress associated with some of the challenges of caring for them, including the financial resources required or the anxiety we feel when they get sick.

Some challenges of pet ownership

In fact, pet ownership comes with responsibilities and challenges that don’t seem to be discussed as often as the benefits. These more difficult aspects of caring for a pet can sometimes be emotionally distressing and negatively impact a pet owner’s psychological well-being.

Having pets, no matter how much we love them, requires time, energy and financial resources. For some, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, this responsibility may represent an additional source of stress. In our study, pet ownership was linked to lower well-being among women and among those with two or more children at home — groups already facing increased child-care and household demands.

Similarly, pet ownership was associated with lower well-being for people who were unemployed or in less stable forms of employment (for example, students, homemakers). Limited financial resources may have made pet care more challenging.

Likewise, having to care for a sick animal can be emotionally distressing for the owners. Caregivers of chronically sick dogs report feeling hopeless and powerless, especially when they cannot help to alleviate their dogs’ suffering.

Other factors, such as the pet’s behavioural problems and the grief experienced after losing a pet, can also be difficult for owners. For those contemplating adoption, it’s important to take these realities into account to make an informed decision.

Meeting our pet’s needs

There are many important factors to consider when welcoming a new animal companion into our homes. Above all, we need to ensure we have the time, energy and resources to meet their needs.

Choosing a pet carefully, based on what we realistically can offer and on reliable information about their characteristics and needs, gives us the best chance of having a positive and successful relationship.




Read more:
For better or worse, your dog’s behaviours can impact your quality of life


Supporting our pets’ needs can also improve our own well-being as owners, showing the potential for mutually beneficial interspecies relationships. But when those needs are not met, both pets and their owners can end up feeling stressed and unwell.

When considering adopting a pet, it’s important to ask: why do we want a pet? If the idea is to improve psychological well-being, our research suggests we might need to think again.

The Conversation

Catherine Amiot is a member of the emerging Board of Directors of the PHAIR Society, an academic society that seeks to promote research on human-animal intergroup relations. She has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and from the Fond de recherche du Québec – Santé (FRQS) for the research conducted in her laboratory which is presented in this article.

Christophe Gagné 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. Pets don’t necessarily improve their owners’ well-being – https://theconversation.com/pets-dont-necessarily-improve-their-owners-well-being-259973

Survivors’ voices 80 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki sound a warning and a call to action

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Masako Toki, Senior Education Project Manager and Research Associate, Nonproliferation Education Program, Middlebury

Supporters of nuclear disarmament, including Hibakusha, demonstrate in Oslo, Norway, in 2024. Hideo Asano, CC BY-ND

Eighty years ago, in August 1945, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incinerated by the first and only use of nuclear weapons in war. By the end of that year, approximately 140,000 people had died in Hiroshima and 74,000 in Nagasaki.

Those who survived – known as Hibakusha – have carried their suffering as living testimony to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear war, with one key wish: that no one else will suffer as they have.

Now, in 2025, as the world marks 80 years of remembrance since those bombings, the voices of the Hibakusha offer not only memory, but also moral clarity in an age of growing peril.

As someone who focuses on nuclear disarmament and has heard Hibakusha testimonies in my native Japanese language, I have been enthusiastically promoting disarmament education grounded in their voices and experience. I believe their message is more vital than ever at a time of rising nuclear risk. Nuclear threats have reemerged in global discourse, breaking long-standing taboos against even talking about their use. From Russia and Europe to the Middle East and East Asia, the possibility of nuclear escalation is no longer unthinkable.

Amid a landscape of rubble, a partially destroyed building stands, with the skeleton of a metal dome atop a tower.
The Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall was one of the few buildings not totally demolished in the Aug. 6, 1945, U.S. atomic bombing of Japan.
Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Japan’s deepening reliance on deterrence

Ironically, increasing nuclear threats are contributing to further reliance on nuclear deterrence, the strategy of preventing attack by threatening nuclear retaliation, rather than renewed efforts toward nuclear disarmament, which seeks to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely.

Nowhere is this contradiction more visible than in Japan. While the Hibakusha have long stood as global advocates for nuclear abolition, Japan’s approach to national security has placed growing emphasis on the role of nuclear deterrence.

In the face of regional threats, the Japanese government has strengthened its dependence on U.S. nuclear protection – even as the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki warn not only of the dangers of relying on nuclear weapons for security, but also of the profound moral failure such reliance represents.

Masako Wada, a survivor of the 1945 atomic bomb attack on Nagasaki, speaks about the risk of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.

Listen to Hibakusha voices

For eight decades, the Hibakusha have shared their stories to prevent future tragedy – not to assign blame, but to awaken conscience and spark action.

Masako Wada, assistant secretary general of Nihon Hidankyo, a nationwide organization of atomic bomb survivors working for the abolition of nuclear weapons, was just under 2 years old when the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Her home, 1.8 miles from the blast center, was shielded by surrounding mountains, sparing her from burns or injury. Though too young to remember the bombing herself, she grew up hearing about it from her mother and grandfather, who witnessed the devastation firsthand.

In July 2025 at a nuclear risk reduction conference in Chicago, Wada told the attendees:

“The risk of using nuclear weapons has never been higher than it is now. … Nuclear deterrence, which intimidates other countries by possessing nuclear weapons, cannot save humanity.”

In a piece she wrote for Arms Control Today that same month, she further implored:

The Hibakusha are the ones who know the humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. We will continue to convey that reality. Please listen to us, please empathize with us. Find out what you can do and take action together with us. Nuclear weapons cannot coexist with human beings. They were created by humans; let us assume the responsibility to abolish them with the wisdom of public conscience.”

This plea – rooted in lived experience and moral responsibility – was recognized globally when the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Nihon Hidankyo. The award honored not only the survivors’ suffering, but their decades-long commitment to preventing future use of nuclear weapons through education, activism and testimony.

A concrete building with no windows and a metal skeleton of a dome atop a tower stand against a blue sky.
The Hiroshima Peace Memorial stands as it has since 1945, partially destroyed by the atomic bomb blast and serving as a reminder of the 140,000 people who died in the attack and its aftermath.
Masako Toki, CC BY-ND

A dwindling number

But time is running out. Most Hibakusha were children or young adults in 1945. Today, their average age is over 86. In March 2025, the number of officially recognized Hibakusha fell below 100,000, according to Japan’s Ministry of Health.

As Terumi Tanaka, a Hiroshima survivor and longtime leader of Nihon Hidankyo, said at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony:

“Ten years from now, there may only be a handful of us able to give testimony as firsthand survivors. From now on, I hope that the next generation will find ways to build on our efforts and develop the movement even further.”

Terumi Tanaka, a survivor of the 1945 atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima, delivers the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize lecture.

The role of empathy in disarmament education

Empathy is not a luxury in disarmament education – it is a necessity. Without it, nuclear weapons remain abstract. With it, they become personal, real and morally unacceptable.

That’s why disarmament education begins with human stories. The Hibakusha testimonies illuminate not only the physical destruction caused by nuclear weapons, but also the long-term trauma, discrimination and intergenerational pain that follow. They remind us that nuclear policy is not just a matter of strategy – it is a question of human survival. Nuclear weapons are the only weapons ever created with the power to annihilate all of humanity – and that makes disarmament not just a political issue, but a moral imperative.

Yet opportunities for young people to learn about nuclear risks, or hear from the Hibakusha directly, are extremely limited. In most countries, these issues are absent from school and university classrooms. This lack of education feeds ignorance and, in turn, complacency – allowing the flawed logic of deterrence to remain unchallenged.

Disarmament education that puts empathy and ethics at its center, along with survivors’ voices, can empower the next generation not only with knowledge, but with moral strength to choose their path.

A person stands at a lectern in front of a screen with photos and text reading 'As long as I could see, all the roof tiles had been blown to one side. The green of the mountain that surround the city was gone. They were brown mountains now.'
Masako Wada, a Hibakusha who survived the U.S. bombing of Nagasaki in August 1945, speaks at a church in California in 2019, spreading the message of the horror of the attack and its aftermath, and urging people to promote nuclear disarmament.
Masako Toki, CC BY-ND

From remembrance to responsibility

Commemorating 80 years since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not about history alone. It is about the future. It is about what people choose to remember – and what people choose to do with that memory.

The Hibakusha have never sought revenge. Their message is clear: This can happen again. But it doesn’t have to.

The Hibakusha’s journey shows that human beings are not destined to remain divided, nor are they doomed to repeat cycles of destruction. In the face of unimaginable loss, many Hibakusha chose not to dwell on anger or seek retribution, but instead to speak out for the good of all humanity. Their activism has been marked not by bitterness, but by an unwavering commitment to peace, empathy and the prevention of future suffering. Rather than directing their pain toward blame, they have transformed it into a powerful appeal to conscience and global solidarity. Their concern has never been only for Japan – but for the future of the entire human race.

That moral clarity, grounded in lived experience, remains profoundly instructive. In a world increasingly filled with conflict and fear, I believe there is much to learn from the Hibakusha. Their testimony is not just a warning – it is a guide.

I try to listen, and urge others, as well, to truly listen to what they have to say. I seek the company of people who also refuse complacency, question the legitimacy of nuclear deterrence, and work for a future where human dignity, not mutual destruction, defines human security.

The Conversation

Masako Toki 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. Survivors’ voices 80 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki sound a warning and a call to action – https://theconversation.com/survivors-voices-80-years-after-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-sound-a-warning-and-a-call-to-action-262174

South African learners struggle with reading comprehension: study reveals a gap between policy and classroom practice

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Tracy Kitchen, Lecturer: Student Academic Development, Rhodes University

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

South African learners consistently struggle with reading comprehension, performing poorly in both international and local assessments. A significant issue is that 81% of grade 4 learners (aged 9 or 10) are unable to read for meaning: they can decode words, but do not necessarily understand them.

While this problem has received considerable attention, no clear explanation has emerged.

In my recent PhD thesis, I considered a crucial, but often overlooked, piece of the puzzle – the curriculum policy. My research sought to uncover and understand the gaps and contradictions in reading comprehension, especially between policy and practice, in a grade 4 classroom.

This research revealed a difference between curriculum policy and practice, and between what learners seemed to have understood and what they actually understood in a routine reading comprehension task.

My main findings were that:

  • grade 4 learners were being asked overly simple, literal questions about what they were reading, despite the text being more complex than expected

  • the kinds of questions that learners should be asked (as indicated in the curriculum policy) were different from what they were being asked

  • this gap led to learners seeming to be more successful at reading comprehension than they actually were.

Pinpointing the gaps between what the policy says and how reading comprehension is actually taught at this crucial stage of development (grade 4) could pave the way for more effective interventions.

Curriculum policy

South African teachers are expected to base their reading comprehension instruction and assessment on the guidelines provided by the 2012 Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement.

The policy outlines specific cognitive skill levels – essentially, ways of thinking and understanding – that learners should master for each reading task. These levels are drawn from Barrett’s 1956 Taxonomy of Reading Comprehension, an international guideline. It’s based on the popular Bloom’s Taxonomy of Reading Comprehension, which categorises reading comprehension according to varying skill levels.

According to Barrett’s Taxonomy, reading comprehension involves five progressively complex levels:

  1. Literal comprehension: Identifying meaning that is directly stated in the text. (For example, “Name the animals in the story”.)

  2. Reorganisation: Organising, paraphrasing, or classifying information that is explicitly stated. (“Find four verbs in the story to describe what the animals did.”)

  3. Inference: Understanding meaning that is not directly stated, but implied. (“When in the story is the leopard being selfish?”)

  4. Evaluation: Making judgements about the text’s content or quality. (“Who do you think this story is usually told to?”)

  5. Appreciation: Making emotional or personal evaluations about the text. (“How well was the author able to get the message across?”)

Typically, reading comprehension tasks will assess a range of these cognitive skills.

South Africa’s Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement document specifies (on pages 91-92) that all reading comprehension tasks should comprise questions that are:

  • 40% literal/reorganisation (lower-order thinking skills)

  • 40% inferential (middle-order)

  • 20% evaluation and appreciation (higher-order).

This approach aims to allow most students to demonstrate a basic understanding of the text, while challenging more advanced learners.

However, as my classroom case study shows, the system appears to be failing. There was a mismatch between the policy and what was taking place in the classroom.

Classroom practice

For this research, I observed the reading comprehension practices in a single classroom in a public school in the Eastern Cape province. This took place over six months, at a time when schools were not fully reopened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The task in question included a text and activity selected by the teacher from a textbook aligned with the policy. My analysis (which used Appraisal, a linguistic framework that tracks evaluative meaning) showed that most of the text’s meaning was implicit. To fully understand it, learners would need higher-order thinking and sophisticated English first-language skills. This was a surprising finding for a grade 4 resource, especially because most learners in this study were not English first-language speakers.

Even more surprising, learners achieved seemingly high marks on comprehension, with an average of 82.9%. This suggested they understood this complex text.

However, I found that the questions in the textbook did not align with policy. Instead of the balance of skills required by the policy, 73% of the questions called only for lower-order skills. Only 20% were inferential and a mere 7% required evaluation or appreciation (middle- to higher-order skills).

At least six of the 15 available marks could be gained simply by listing explicitly stated items, not requiring genuine comprehension.

This reveals that, in this classroom, activities labelled as policy-compliant actually tested only lower-order comprehension. Learners could pass simply by identifying and listing information from the text. This creates a false sense of comprehension success, as revealed by the high marks.

When learners were tested on the same text but using different questions that I designed to align with the policy requirements, they scored lower marks, especially for the higher-order questions.

This mismatch might partly explain why South Africans score poorly in international tests (which require more higher-order thinking).

Why this matters and moving forward

These findings are concerning, as learners may be lulled into believing that they are successful readers. A false sense of accomplishment could have significant impacts on the rest of their education.

Comprehension difficulties can’t be blamed solely on the disconnect between policy and practice, however. Many other contextual factors shape how learners perform in reading comprehension tasks.

In my study, factors like COVID-19, insufficient home language teaching policies, educational inequalities, and the pressures on teachers during a crisis (brought on by COVID-19) all contributed to the literacy crisis.




Read more:
South Africa’s reading crisis: focus on the root cause, not the peripherals


However, two key points became clear during this study.

Firstly, teaching materials favour lower-order comprehension skills, skewing perceptions of learners’ abilities.

Secondly, teachers may lack the knowledge, resources or motivation to adjust these materials to truly align with the national policy in how reading comprehension is assessed.

This calls for urgent intervention in how reading comprehension is taught and assessed and in how teachers are prepared to do this effectively.

The Conversation

This research was partially funded by the National Research Foundation (NRF).

ref. South African learners struggle with reading comprehension: study reveals a gap between policy and classroom practice – https://theconversation.com/south-african-learners-struggle-with-reading-comprehension-study-reveals-a-gap-between-policy-and-classroom-practice-260033

The global health system can build back better after US aid cuts – here’s how

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Jonathan E. Cohen, Professor of Clinical Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine and Director of Policy Engagement, Institute on Inequalities in Global Health, University of Southern California, University of Southern California

Steep cuts in US government funding have thrown much of the field of global health into a state of fear and uncertainty. Once a crown jewel of US foreign policy, valued at some US$12 billion a year, global health has been relegated to a corner of a restructured State Department governed by an “America First” agenda.

Whatever emerges from the current crisis, it will look very different from the past.

As someone who has spent a 25-year career in global health and human rights and now teaches the subject to graduate students in California, I am often asked whether young people can hope for a future in the field. My answer is a resounding yes.

More than ever, we need the dedication, humility and vision of the next generation to reinvent the field of global health, so that it is never again so vulnerable to the political fortunes of a single country. And more than ever, I am hopeful this will be the case.

To understand the source of my hope, it is important to recall what brought US engagement in global health to its current precipice – and how a historic response to specific diseases paradoxically left African health systems vulnerable.

Disease and dependency

Over two decades ago, the field of global health as we currently know it emerged out of the global response to HIV/Aids – among the deadliest pandemics in human history. The pandemic principally affected people of reproductive age and babies born to HIV-positive parents.

The creation of the US President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) in 2003 was at the time the largest-ever bilateral programme to combat a single disease. It redefined the field of global health for decades to come, with the US at its centre. While both the donors and issues in the field would multiply over the years, global health would never relinquish its origins in American leadership against HIV/Aids.

Pepfar placed African nations in a state of extreme dependence on the US. We are now witnessing the results – not for the first time. The global financial crisis of 2008 reduced development assistance to health, which generated new thinking about financing and domestic resource mobilisation.

Yet, the US continued to underwrite Africa’s disease responses through large contracts to American universities and implementers. This was for good reason, given the urgency of the problem, the growing strength of Africa’s health systems as a result of Pepfar, and the moral duty of the world’s richest country.

With the rise of right-wing populism and the polarising effects of COVID-19, global health would come to be seen by many Americans as an elite enterprise. The apparent trade-off between public health countermeasures and economic life during COVID-19 – a false choice to experts who know a healthy workforce to be a precondition for a strong economy – alienated many voters from the advice of disease prevention experts. The imperative to “vaccinate the world” and play a leadership role in global health security lacked a strong domestic constituency. It proved no match for monopolistic priorities of the pharmaceutical industry and the insularity and economic anxieties of millions of Americans.




Read more:
How Trump’s proposed US aid cuts will affect healthcare in Africa


This history set the stage for the sudden abdication of US global health leadership in early 2025. By the time the Department of Government Efficiency came for USAID, many viewed global health as a relic of the early response to HIV/Aids, an excuse for other governments to spend less on health, or an industry of elites. The field was an easy target, and the White House must have known it.

Yet therein lies the hope. If global health came of age around a single disease, an exercise of US soft power, and a cadre of elite experts, it now has an opportunity to change itself from the ground up. What can emerge is a new global health compact, in which African governments design robust health systems for themselves and enlist the international community to assist from behind.

Opportunity to build back better

To build a new global health compact for Africa, the first change must be from a focus on combating individual diseases to ensuring that all people have the opportunity for health and well-being throughout their lives. Rather than allowing entire health systems to be defined by the response to HIV/Aids, tuberculosis and malaria, Africa needs integrated systems that promote:

  • primary care, which brings services for the majority of health needs closer to communities

  • health promotion, which enables people to take control of all aspects of their health and well-being

  • long-term care, which helps all people function and maintain quality of life over their entire lifespan.

No global trend compels this shift more than population ageing, which will soon engulf every nation as a result of lengthening life expectancy and declining fertility. As the proportion of older adults grows to outstrip that of children, societies need systems of integrated healthcare that help people manage multiple diseases. They don’t need fragmented programmes that produce conflicting medical advice, dangerous drug interactions, and crippling bureaucracy. Time is running out to make this fundamental shift.

Second, there is a need to shift the relationship between low-income and high-income nations towards shared investment in the service of local needs. This is beginning to happen in some places, and it will require greater sacrifices on all sides.

Low-income governments need to spend a higher percentage of their GDP on healthcare. That will in turn require addressing the many factors that stymie the redistribution of wealth, from corruption to debt to lack of progressive taxation. The US and other high-income countries need to pay their fair share, while also sharing decision-making over how global public goods, from vaccines to disease surveillance to health workers, are shared and distributed in an interconnected world.




Read more:
Africa relies too heavily on foreign aid for health – 4 ways to fix this


Third, there is need to change the narrative of global health in wealthy countries such as the US to better connect to the concerns of voters who are hostile to globalism itself. This means addressing people’s real fears that public health measures will cost them their job, force them to close their business, or advance a pharmaceutical industry agenda. It means justifying global health in terms that people can relate to and agree with – that is, helping to save lives without taking responsibility for other countries’ health systems.

It means forging unlikely alliances between those who believe in leadership from the so-called global south and those who take an insular view of America’s role in the world.

Leading from behind

Make no mistake. I am not counting on this – or any – US administration to reinvent global health on terms that are more responsive to current disease trends, more equitable between nations, and more relevant to American voters.

But nor would I want them to. To create the global health for the future, the leadership must come not only from the US, but rather from a shared commitment among the community of nations to give and receive according to their capacities and needs. And that is something to hope for.

The Conversation

Jonathan E. Cohen 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. The global health system can build back better after US aid cuts – here’s how – https://theconversation.com/the-global-health-system-can-build-back-better-after-us-aid-cuts-heres-how-259798

If everyone in the world turned on the lights at the same time, what would happen?

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Harold Wallace, Curator, Electricity Collections, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution

This combined satellite image shows how Earth’s city lights would look if it were night around the entire planet at once. White areas of light show cities with larger populations. NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

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.


If everyone in the world turned on the lights at the same time, what would happen? – Clara


The biggest effect of everyone turning lights on at once would be a surge in demand for electricity, which most people worldwide use to operate their lights.

Electricity is a form of energy that is made using many different fuels. Power plants are electricity factories that generate electricity from sources including coal, natural gas, uranium, water, wind and sunlight. Then they feed it into a network of transmission and distribution wires called the power grid, which delivers the electricity to homes and businesses.

To keep the grid stable, electricity must be supplied on demand. When someone turns on a light, they draw power from the grid. A generator must immediately feed an equal amount of power into the grid. If the system gets out of balance, even for a few seconds, a blackout can happen.

System operators use sensors and sophisticated computers to track electricity demand so they can adjust power production up or down as needed. Total power demand, which is called load, varies a lot from hour to hour and season to season. To see why, think of how much electricity your home uses during the day compared with the middle of the night, or during a summer heat wave compared with a cool fall day.

Charts showing 2019 U.S. electricity consumption nationwide, with seasonal and weekly patterns.
These images show patterns of electricity use. Through the year (large graph), people use more electricity for summer cooling and winter heating than in spring and fall. Weekly, consumption drops on weekends, when many businesses are closed.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Hourly Electric Grid Monitor

Meeting a demand spike

If everyone turned on their lights all at once around the world, they would create a huge, sudden demand for electricity. Power plants would have to ramp up generation very quickly to avoid a system crash. But these plants respond to changing demand in different ways.

Coal and nuclear plants can provide lots of electricity at almost any time, but if they’re shut off for maintenance or they malfunction, they can take many hours to bring back online. They also respond slowly to load changes.

Power plants that burn natural gas can respond more quickly to changing load, so they typically are the tool of choice to cover periods when the most electricity is needed, such as hot, sunny summer afternoons.

Renewable electricity sources such as solar, wind and water power produce less pollution but are not as easily controlled. That’s because the wind doesn’t always blow at the same speed, nor is every day equally sunny in most places.

Grid managers use large batteries to smooth out power flow as demand rises and falls. But it’s not yet possible to store enough electricity in batteries to run an entire town or city. The batteries would be too expensive and would drain too quickly.

Some hydropower operators can pump water into lakes during periods of low demand, then release that water to generate electricity when demand is high by running it through machines called turbines.

Fortunately, if everyone turned on their lights at once, two things would work to prevent a total system crash. First, there is no single worldwide power grid. Most countries have their own grids, or multiple regional grids.

Neighboring grids, such as those in the United States and Canada, are typically connected so that countries can move electricity across their borders. But they can disconnect quickly, so even if the power went out in some areas, it’s unlikely that all the grids would crash at once.

Second, over the past 20 years, light bulbs called LEDs have replaced many older electric lights. LEDs operate differently from earlier light bulb designs and produce much more light from each unit of electricity, so they require much less power from the grid.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, using LED bulbs saves the average household about US$225 yearly. As of 2020, nearly half of all U.S. homes used LEDS for most or all of their lighting needs.

LEDs, or light–emitting diodes, are semiconductor devices called transistors that generate light with almost no heat.

More glare, fewer stars

Beyond powering lights, it’s also important to think about where all that light would go. A big spike in lighting would dramatically increase sky glow − the hazy brightness that hangs over towns and cities at night.

Sky glow happens when light reflects off haze and dust particles in the air, creating a diffuse glow that washes out the night sky. Light is very difficult to control: For example, it can reflect off bright surfaces, such as car windows and concrete.

Lighting is often overused at night. Think of empty office buildings where lights burn around the clock, or street lights that shine upward instead of down on streets and sidewalks where illumination is needed.

A Joshua tree silhouetted against a starry night sky, with orange glow from artificial lights on the horizon.
Night sky in California’s Joshua Tree National Park, with light pollution from artificial lights in the Coachella Valley.
NPS/Lian Law

Even well-designed lighting systems can add to the problem, making cities and highways visible from space and the stars invisible from the ground. This light pollution
can harm human health by interfering with our bodies’ natural sleep and waking cycles. It can also disorient insects, birds, sea turtles and other wildlife.

If people worldwide all turned on their lights at once, we’d see a modest increase in power consumption, but a lot more sky glow and no stars in the night sky. That’s not a very enticing view.


Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

The Conversation

Harold Wallace is a member of the Illuminating Engineering Society.

ref. If everyone in the world turned on the lights at the same time, what would happen? – https://theconversation.com/if-everyone-in-the-world-turned-on-the-lights-at-the-same-time-what-would-happen-256175

National parks are key conservation areas for wildlife and natural resources

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Sarah Diaz, Associate Professor of Recreation and Sport Management, Coastal Carolina University

A researcher collects water samples in Everglades National Park in Florida to monitor ecosystem health. AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell

The United States’ national parks have an inherent contradiction. The federal law that created the National Park Service says the agency – and the parks – must “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife … unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

That means both protecting fragile wild places and making sure people can visit them. Much of the public focus on the parks is about recreation and enjoyment, but the parks are extremely important places for research and conservation efforts.

These places contain a wide range of sensitive and striking environments: volcanoes, glaciers, sand dunes, marshlands, ocean ecosystems, forests and deserts. And these areas face a broad variety of conservation challenges, including the effects of climate change, the perils of popularity driving crowds to some places, and the Trump administration’s reductions to park service staff and funding.

As scholars of recreation who study the national parks and teach a course on them, we have seen the park service make parks far more than just recreational opportunities. They are living laboratories where researchers – park service personnel and others – study nature across wide-ranging ecosystems and apply what they learn to inform public and private conservation efforts around the country.

A group of wolves on a snowy landscape.
Gray wolves, long native to the Yellowstone area, were reintroduced to the national park in the mid-1990s and have helped the entire ecosystem flourish since.
National Park Service via AP

Returning wolves to Yellowstone

One of the best known outcomes of conservation research in park service history is still playing out in the nation’s first national park, Yellowstone.

Gray wolves once roamed the forests and mountains, but government-sanctioned eradication efforts to protect livestock in the late 1800s and early 1900s hunted them to near extinction in the lower 48 states by the mid-20th century. In 1974, the federal government declared that gray wolves needed the protections of the Endangered Species Act.

Research in the park found that the ecosystem required wolves as apex predators to maintain a healthy balance in nature.

In the mid-1990s, an effort began to reintroduce gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park. The project brought 41 wolves from Canada to the park. The wolves reproduced and became the basis of a Yellowstone-based population that has numbered as many as 120 and in December 2024 was estimated at 108.

The return of wolves has not only drawn visitors hoping to see these beautiful and powerful predators, but their return has also triggered what scholars call a “trophic cascade,” in which the wolves decrease elk numbers, which in turn has allowed willow and aspen trees to survive to maturity and restore dense groves of vegetation across the park.

Increased vegetation in turn led to beaver population increases as well as ecosystem changes brought by their water management and engineering skills. Songbirds also came back, now that they could find shade and shelter in trees near water and food sources.

A bear climbs a tree.
Since the establishment of Great Smoky Mountains National Park in 1934, black bear populations have rebounded in the park.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park via AP

Black bear protection in the Great Smoky Mountains

Great Smoky Mountains National Park is the most biologically diverse park in the country, with over 19,000 species documented and another 80,000 to 100,000 species believed to be present. However, the forests of the Appalachian Mountains were nearly completely clear-cut in the late 1800s and early 20th century, during the early era of the logging industry in the region.

Because their habitat was destroyed, and because they were hunted, black bears were nearly eradicated. By 1934, when Great Smoky Mountains National Park was designated, there were only an estimated 100 bears left in the region. Under the park’s protection, the population rebounded to an estimated 1,900 bears in and around the park in 2025.

Much like the gray wolves in Yellowstone, bears are essential to the health of this ecosystem by preying on other animals, scavenging carcasses and dispersing seeds.

Water preservation in the Everglades

The Everglades are a vast subtropical ecosystem located in southern Florida. They provide drinking water and irrigation to millions of people across the state, help control storm flooding and are home to dozens of federally threatened and endangered species such as the Florida panther and American alligator.

When Everglades National Park was created in 1947, it was the first time a U.S. national park had been established to protect a natural resource for more than just its scenic value.

As agriculture and surrounding urban development continue to pollute this natural resource, park professionals and partner organizations have focused on improving habitat restoration, both for the wildlife and for humans’ water quality.

A large tawny cat springs across an area of gravel and grass.
A Florida panther, rescued as a kitten, is released into the wild in the Everglades in 2013.
AP Photo/J Pat Carter

Inspiring future generations

To us, perhaps the most important work in the national parks involves young people. Research shows that visiting, exploring and understanding the parks and their ecosystems can foster deep connections with natural spaces and encourage younger generations to take up the mantle of stewardship of the parks and the environment as a whole.

With their help, the parks – and the landscapes, resources and beauty they protect– can be preserved for the benefit of nature and humans, in the parks and far beyond their boundaries.

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. National parks are key conservation areas for wildlife and natural resources – https://theconversation.com/national-parks-are-key-conservation-areas-for-wildlife-and-natural-resources-261644

Fixing Michigan’s teacher shortage isn’t just about getting more recruits

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Gail Richmond, Professor of Education, Michigan State University

Finding good candidates to fill that teacher’s chair is no easy task. Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Nearly 500 of Michigan’s 705 school districts reported teaching vacancies in the fall of 2023. That’s up from 262 districts at the beginning of the 2012 school year.

The number of vacancies is likely an undercount, because this number does not include substitutes or unqualified teachers who may have been hired to fill gaps.

Local news reports and job boards suggest that at least some Michigan districts are still struggling to fill open positions for the fall of 2025.

The teacher shortage is a nationwide problem, but it is especially acute in Michigan, where the number of teachers leaving teaching and the overall teacher shortage both exceed the national average. This shortage is particularly severe in urban and rural communities, which have the most underresourced schools, and in specialization areas such as science, mathematics and special education.

For more than two decades, my work at Michigan State University has centered on designing and leading effective teacher preparation programs. My research focuses on ways to attract people to teaching and keep them in the profession by helping them grow into effective classroom leaders.

Low pay and lack of support

Teacher shortages are the result of a combination of factors, especially low salaries, heavy workloads and a lack of ongoing professional support.

A report released last year, for example, found that Michigan teachers and teachers nationwide make about 20% less compared to those in other careers that also require a college education.

From my experience working with teachers and district leadership across the state, I know that beginning teachers – especially those in districts which have severe shortages – are often given the most challenging teaching loads. And in some districts, teachers have been forced to work without the benefit of any kind of planning time in their daily schedule.

The shortage was made much worse by the COVID-19 pandemic, which led many educators to leave the profession. Yet another culprit is the many teachers who, in Michigan as well as nationally, were hired during the 1960s and early ’70s, when school enrollments saw a massive increase, and who in the past decade have been retiring in large numbers.

Creating pathways to certification

One recent strategy to address the teacher shortage in Michigan has been to create nontraditional routes to teacher certification.

The idea is to prepare educators more quickly and inexpensively. A variety of agencies – from the Michigan Department of Education, state-level grants programs such as the Future Proud Michigan Educator program, as well as private foundations and businesses – have helped these programs along financially.

Even some school districts, including the Detroit Public Schools Community District, have adopted this strategy in order to certify teachers and fill vacant positions.

A modern-looking multi-story building made from glass and red cladding materials
Cass Technical High School is a magnet school in midtown Detroit.
WikiMedia Commons, CC BY-ND

Other similar programs are the product of partnerships between Michigan’s intermediate school districts, community colleges and four-year colleges and universities. One example is Grand Valley State University’s Western Michigan Teacher Collaborative, which targets interested students of college age. Another is MSU’s Community Teacher Initiative, designed to attract students into teaching while they are still in high school.

Perhaps even more visible are national programs such as Teachers of Tomorrow and Teach for America. Candidates in such programs often work as full-time teachers while completing teacher training coursework with minimal oversight or support.

‘Stuffing the pipeline’ is not the solution

But simply “stuffing the pipeline” with new recruits is not enough to solve the teacher-shortage problem in Michigan.

The loss of teachers is significantly higher among individuals in nontraditional training programs and for teachers of color. This starts while they are preparing to be certified and continues for several years after certification.

The primary reasons for the higher attrition rates include a lack of awareness of the complexity of schools and schooling, the lack of effective mentoring during the certification period, and the absence of instructional and other professional guidance in the early years of teaching.

How to repair the leaky faucet

So how can teachers be encouraged to stay in the profession?

Here are a few of the things scholars have learned to improve outcomes in traditional and nontraditional preparation programs:

Temper expectations. Teaching is a critically important career, but leading individuals to believe that they can repair the damage done by a complex set of socioeconomic issues – including multigenerational poverty and lack of access to healthy and affordable food, housing, drinking water and health care – puts beginning teachers on a short road to early burnout and departure.

Give student teachers strong mentors. Working in schools helps student teachers deepen their knowledge not only of teaching but also of how schools, families and communities work together. But these experiences are useful only if they are overseen and supported by an experienced and caring educator and supported by the organization’s leadership.

Recognize the limits of online learning. Online teacher preparation programs are convenient and have their place but don’t provide student teachers with real-world experience and opportunities for guided discussion about what they see, hear and feel when working with students.

Respect the process of “becoming.” Professional support should not end when a new teacher is officially certified. Teachers, like other professionals such as nurses, doctors and lawyers, need time to develop skills throughout their careers.

Providing this support sends a powerful message: that teachers are valued members of the community. Knowing that helps them stay in their jobs.

The Conversation

Gail Richmond 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. Fixing Michigan’s teacher shortage isn’t just about getting more recruits – https://theconversation.com/fixing-michigans-teacher-shortage-isnt-just-about-getting-more-recruits-252606

PBS accounts for nearly half of first graders’ most frequently watched educational TV and video programs

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Rebecca Dore, Director of Research of the Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy, The Ohio State University

Rep. Robert Garcia, a California Democrat, speaks during a House hearing in March 2025, months before Congress rescinded two years of public media funding. Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

CC BY-ND

At U.S. President Donald Trump’s request, Congress voted in July 2025 to claw back US$1.1 billion it had previously approved for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That measure, which passed in the House and the Senate by very narrow margins, will cut off all federal tax dollars that would have otherwise flowed to PBS and its affiliated TV stations for the next two fiscal years.

The public media network has played a crucial role in producing educational TV programs, especially for children, for nearly 60 years. It has been getting 15% of its budget in recent years from the federal government. Many of its affiliate stations are far more reliant on Washington than that – leading to a flurry of announcements regarding planned program cuts.

Sesame Street” is still in production, joined by newer TV shows like “Wild Kratts” and “Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood.” PBS KIDS, in addition to producing popular age-appropriate programs, has a website and multiple apps with games and activities that provide other opportunities for learning.

Local PBS affiliate stations offer educational programming and other resources for schools, families and communities.

I’m a child development researcher studying how kids engage with digital media and how educational programming and other kinds of content help them learn. I also have two children under 5, so I’m now immersed in children’s media both at work and at home.

What kids watch

In a study about the kinds of media kids consume that the Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology published in June 2025, my colleagues and I surveyed the parents and other kinds of caregivers of 346 first graders. The study participants listed the TV shows, videos, apps and games the kids used the most.

Our research team then used a systematic coding process to look at how much children access educational programming in their favorite media – whether it’s through their favorite TV shows, web videos or video games.

We found that only 12% of this content could be described as educational. This amount varied widely: For some children, according to the adults we surveyed, educational media comprised their top three to five sources. Others listed no educational media consumption at all.

We also looked into who is taking advantage of educational media.

Our team found no differences in kids’ educational media use according to how many years of education their parents had. That finding suggests that kids of all backgrounds are equally likely to consume it.

A tween boy plays a videogame with two screens.
The vast majority of the media that kids consume has little educational value.
Neilson Barnard/Getty Images

The Role of PBS

This peer-reviewed study didn’t break down our results by specific media outlets. But in light of the cessation of federal funding, I wanted to find out how much of the educational content that children watch comes from PBS.

By revisiting our data with this objective in mind, I learned that PBS accounted for 45% of the educational TV or videos parents said their kids watched most often. This makes PBS the top source for children’s educational programming by far. Nickelodeon/Nick Jr. was in second place with 14%, and YouTube, at 9%, came in third.

PBS accounted for a smaller portion, just 6%, of all educational apps and games. I believe that could be because a few non-PBS apps, like Prodigy and i-Ready, which can be introduced in school, dominate this category.

‘Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood,’ a cartoon, will seem familiar to anyone who grew up watching ‘Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.‘

An Uncertain future

Independent production companies collaborating on programming with PBS consult experts in child development and children’s media and conduct research throughout the production process to see how children respond and learn, often in partnership with PBS KIDS.

This rigorous production process can include observing children watching the show, conducting focus groups and surveying parents about their experiences. It requires a lot of time and money to produce this kind of thoughtfully crafted educational media. This process ensures that the programming is both fun for children and helps them learn.

What the end of federal funding will mean for PBS’ educational programming for kids is still unclear. But to me, it seems inevitable that my children – and everyone else’s kids – will have fewer research-informed and freely accessible options for years to come.

At the same time, there will likely be no shortage of flashy and shallow content marketed to kids that offers little of value for their learning.

The Conversation

Rebecca Dore has conducted previous consulting work for PBS KIDS and engages with a PBS KIDS staff member who is a member of the advisory board for one of Dore’s current federally funded grants.

ref. PBS accounts for nearly half of first graders’ most frequently watched educational TV and video programs – https://theconversation.com/pbs-accounts-for-nearly-half-of-first-graders-most-frequently-watched-educational-tv-and-video-programs-261996

Plantation tourism, memory and the uneasy economics of heritage in the American South

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Betsy Pudliner, Associate Professor of Hospitality and Technology Innovation, University of Wisconsin-Stout

The American South – and the nation more broadly – continues to wrestle with how to remember its most painful chapters. Tourism is one of the arenas where that struggle is most visible.

This tension came into sharp relief in May 2025, when the largest antebellum mansion in the region – the 19th-century estate at Nottoway Plantation in Louisiana – burned to the ground. While some historians, community members and tourism advocates mourned the loss of a landmark site, many activists and others critical of slavery’s past celebrated its destruction.

Soon after the fire, Nottoway’s owner indicated an interest in rebuilding. And within weeks, a new restaurant had opened on a different part of the site. That speed underscores how quickly memory, history and economics can collide – and how tourism sits at the center of that tension.

As a professor who studies tourism, I know that the impulse to monetize history isn’t new. Six months after the First Battle of Manassas in 1861, the site was already developing as a tourist attraction. People have been traveling to historic sites, buying souvenirs and leaving their mark on the landscape for centuries. That tradition continues, and evolves, today.

Wealth, slavery and the battle over memory

Nottoway is one of more than 300 such plantation sites across the country, which together generate billions of dollars in revenue each year. This type of tourism forces communities and visitors alike to ask a difficult question: What parts of the past do Americans preserve, and for whom?

A local news segment about the Nottoway fire.

Nottoway, completed in 1859, was built by 155 enslaved people. Blending Greek Revival and Italianate styles, it stood as a monument to wealth built on forced labor and racial exploitation. Over the decades, it passed through different owners, survived the Civil War and was eventually restored and converted into a resort and wedding venue. Critics have long argued that this commercial reinvention downplayed the lives and labor of enslaved people, neglecting the site’s foundations in brutality.

Beyond its symbolism, Nottoway has long been recognized as a cornerstone of Iberville Parish’s tourism economy. Research shows that sites like Nottoway can anchor regional economies by encouraging longer stays and local spending. These can stimulate nearby businesses through the multiplier effect.

Nottoway’s sociocultural significance was far more complex – as shown by the celebrations that followed the fire. For many, Nottoway was a site of trauma and erasure. With its white columns and manicured lawns, Nottoway was pervaded by a sense of romanticism that relied on selective memory. For example, as of June 2025, the Nottoway website’s “History” page made no mention of slavery.

In other words, the fire didn’t just destroy a building. It disrupted a layered ecosystem of economic livelihood, memory and contested meaning.

Tourism and the power of the past

To understand why people visit places like Nottoway, it helps to turn to the four main categories of travel motivation: physical, cultural, interpersonal and status. Plantation venues typically draw cultural tourists seeking heritage, history and architecture.

They also draw those engaged in what scholars call “dark tourism”: traveling to places associated with tragedy and death. While dark tourism may imply voyeurism, many such visits are deeply reflective. These travelers seek to confront hard truths and process collective memory. But if interpretation is selective – focusing on opulence while minimizing suffering – tourism then becomes a force of historical distortion.

Some tourists choose plantations for a sense of romance, others for education, and still others for reckoning. These motivations complicate how such places should be preserved, interpreted or transformed.

Over the past decade, innovative sites like the Whitney Plantation have gained national attention for centering the lives and stories of the enslaved, rather than the architecture or planter families. Opened to the public in 2014, Whitney reframed the traditional plantation tour by prioritizing historical truth over nostalgia – featuring first-person slave narratives, memorials and educational programming focused on slavery’s brutality.

A CBS News report on Whitney Plantation.

This approach reflects a growing segment of travelers seeking deeper engagement with difficult histories. As Whitney draws visitors for its honesty and restorative framing, it raises a key question: Is the future of plantation tourism splitting into two tracks – one rooted in reflection, the other in romanticism?

Many Americans still picture the antebellum South through the lens of popular culture – a romanticized vision shaped by novels and films like “Gone with the Wind,” with its iconic Tara plantation. This “Tara effect” continues to influence how plantations are portrayed and remembered, often emphasizing beauty and grandeur while downplaying the brutality of slavery.

That’s why sites like the Donato House in Louisiana are important. Built and owned by Martin Donato, a formerly enslaved man who later became a landowner – and, complicating the narrative, also a slaveholder – this modest home offers a counterpoint to the opulence of estates like Nottoway.

Still in the hands of Donato’s descendants and slowly developing as a tourist site, the Donato House reflects the layered and often uncomfortable truths that challenge simple historical categories. Sites like this remind us that tourism plays a vital role in educating society about the complexity of our past. Heritage travel isn’t just about iconic landmarks; it’s about broadening our perspective, confronting historical bias and helping visitors to engage with the fuller, often uncomfortable, truths behind the stories we tell.

Controlling the narrative: Who tells the story?

What is chosen to be preserved – or let go of – shapes not only our memory of the past but our vision for the future.

When the last generation with firsthand experience of a historical moment is gone, their stories remain in fragments – photos, recordings such as those in the National Archives, or family lore. Some memories are factual, others softened or sharpened with time. That’s the nature of memory: It changes with us.

My late father, a high school history teacher, often reminded his students and his children to study the full spectrum of history: the good, the bad and the profoundly uncomfortable. He believed one must dive deep into its complexity to better understand human behavior and motivation.

He was right. Tourism has always echoed the layered realities of the human experience. Now, as Americans reckon with what was lost at Nottoway, we’re left with the question: “What story will be told – and who will get to tell it?”

The Conversation

Betsy Pudliner is affiliated with ICHRIE.

ref. Plantation tourism, memory and the uneasy economics of heritage in the American South – https://theconversation.com/plantation-tourism-memory-and-the-uneasy-economics-of-heritage-in-the-american-south-258558