English – Page 52 – MIL Submissions Engine

May 1, 2026

How individual consciousness works – and makes us unique

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Peter Coppola, Visiting Researcher, Cambridge Neuroscience, University of Cambridge

As we go through life, our brains run different processing modes. Some – the attention and sensory systems – result in very similar experiences of the world: what colour the sky is, how warm the day feels.

But there is another, deeper side to the brain which weaves together your memories, goals, beliefs and emotions into a continuous sense of self. This allows you to experience the world not as it is, but as it matters to you personally.

This unique inner world is supported by the brain’s default mode network (DMN). This links together several areas including in the prefrontal cortex (at the very front of the brain) and the parietal lobe (at the back).

These areas of the DMN are, in evolutionary terms, relatively recent. As human brains expanded dramatically between around 800,000 and 200,000 years ago, those regions grew in size and complexity compared with our closest primate relatives. They are more likely to express genes that are uniquely human, related to brain development and function.

Our latest research explores to what extent the DMN explains what makes each of us unique. Put another way, we are attempting to understand what makes you “you”.

Magnetic resonance imaging of areas of the brain in the default mode network.
John Graner/Walter Reed National Military Medical Center via Wikimedia Commons

What makes us human?

While ancient deep regions of the brain, shared with all vertebrates, support basic experiences such as fear and thirst, the more recent and complex DMN is important for what makes us human.

To better understand the differences, we asked 16 adult volunteers to listen to an excerpt from the Hollywood film Taken (2009) while we recorded their brain activity. Using the audio alone enabled us to compare each person’s activity when both conscious and unconscious. Our volunteers were scanned using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while awake and under general anaesthetic, as the same story was played to them.

Each time, we tracked the shifting patterns of communication between brain regions. In particular, we monitored changes in each person’s attention, sensory and default mode networks, and compared these with changes in subjective experience that participants reported.

When participants were conscious, we found their DMN activity patterns became both more complex and more dissimilar to each other as they listened to the story. In contrast, when unconscious, their individual signatures diminished – becoming simpler and more similar to those of the other volunteers.

But their attention and sensory networks showed the opposite pattern. These were more similar when awake, reflecting common mechanisms for gathering sensory information and interpreting the external world through sight and sound.

Our results reinforce that the DMN carries the more personal side of consciousness, changing from moment to moment to reflect each person’s thoughts, memories and inner experiences.

However, different parts of the DMN contribute in different ways. Some subregions, both deep in the back of the cortex and in the front of the brain, help us reflect on ourselves, imagine possibilities, and weave experience into a personal story. Others, especially those linked to memory in the deep temporal lobe regions, help reconstruct scenes and recall past events, and make sense of ideas and how they connect.

Official trailer for the film Taken, from which an audio clip was used in the authors’ study.

Understanding our uniqueness

Why does the DMN vary so much from person to person? Because it underpins deeply personal characteristics that define us, such as personality and values.

This echoes ideas like that of pioneering psychologist William James, who wrote: “Every brain-state is partly determined by the nature of this entire past succession … It is out of the question, then, that any total brain-state should identically recur.”

The DMN interacts with the rest of the brain to enable us move fluidly between the world as it is, and the world as we conceive it. Some studies suggest that disrupting DMN activity can blunt originality in creative tasks.

Altered DMN connectivity has been linked to many mental health conditions, particularly those involving self-narrative, memory and social cognition. If we can map a person’s DMN dynamics, we may be able to better understand their specific difficulties – for example, with memory or socialising – in a way that could one day lead to more personal forms of therapy.

But achieving high-quality brain maps requires lengthy scans and complex analytics. That is where precision functional mapping (combining a variety of methods including fMRI) and artificial intelligence come in.

Precision mapping can handle large amounts of data per person to chart individual networks. Machine learning models may then be able to combine these maps with genetics and symptoms to guide diagnosis and treatment.

But deeper questions need answering too. Humans are highly social animals living in complex societies. If every person’s inner world is unique, what does that mean for ethical decisions such as managing criminality or prioritising treatments?

The DMN is key to enabling our ability to imagine different futures. This includes the precise role that brain science can and should play in them.

Peter Coppola received funding from Cambridge Trust.
Peter Coppola is currently part of the University of East Anglia and an employee of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust. He is also a Visiting Researcher at the University of Cambridge

Emmanuel A Stamatakis received funding related to this work from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR; RCZB/072 RG93193) and the Stephen Erskine Fellowship at Queens’ College, Cambridge.

– ref. How individual consciousness works – and makes us unique – https://theconversation.com/how-individual-consciousness-works-and-makes-us-unique-281512

May 1, 2026

War in the Gulf and on US free speech

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

Brent crude oil surged to US$126 (£94) a barrel after US president Donald Trump announced that he was willing to prolong the blockade of Iranian ports for “months if needed”. This conflict has been billed as a matter of who can absorb the most pain. And Trump is betting on it being the US.

Trump has been rather bullish in his public pronouncements of late, declaring that Iran is in a “state of collapse”. Reports that the country’s inflation rate has risen to 50% from 40% since the war began at the end of February would seem to back this assessment.

The damage done to Iran’s economy will be made worse if the country is forced to shut down oil production due to a lack of storage capacity, something Trump is also confident about. He told Axios: “The blockade is somewhat more effective than the bombing. They are choking like a stuffed pig.”

Now in its eighth week, the conflict is having knock-on effects throughout the region and beyond. Perhaps the most telling sign this week was the announcement by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that it was quitting Opec, the oil producers’ cartel.

Adi Imsirovic, an energy expert at the University of Oxford, believes that while this decision has been brewing for some time – UAE and Opec’s de facto leader, Saudi Arabia, are at loggerheads over the civil war in Yemen and conflicts in Sudan and across the Horn of Africa. But the war has sharpened political sensibilities across the Gulf. Abu Dhabi has been unhappy about the lack of support from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) after being on the receiving end of intense bombardment from Iran.

Meanwhile, it has chafed under production quotas imposed by the cartel, which it sees as being well short – unfairly so – of its production capacity. When the Strait of Hormuz opens and countries begin to restock their reserves, UAE believes it can cash in on increased demand.

For Imsirovic, the episode reveals something deeper: as the transition by much of the world to retool their economies away from dependence on fossil fuels, big producers like the UAE worry about being left with oil in the ground that nobody wants. Hence the desire to pump out more oil without being constrained by Opec quotas.

Another question inevitably raised by the Middle East conflict and the chokehold that the Strait of Hormuz has over energy markets is why nobody has figured out an alternative route. After all, Iran has been threatening to close the strait whenever threatened since the early 1980s.

The fact is, various countries have figured out an alternative route, writes David B. Roberts of King’s College London; it’s just not big enough to cope. The East-West Pipeline (or Petroline) can pipe oil across the Saudi peninsula at a rate of 5-7 million barrels a day. This compares with an estimated 20 million barrels that transit the Strait of Hormuz in normal times.

A map showing the East-West Pipeline in Saudi Arabia and the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline in the United Arab Emirates. — The East-West Pipeline in Saudi Arabia and the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline in the United Arab Emirates are two crucial Hormuz workarounds.
Peter Hermes Furian / Shutterstock

The Abu Dhabi crude oil pipeline, which takes oil from the Habshan onshore field in Abu Dhabi and runs to Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman handles less than 2 million barrels per day. Both pipelines have been damaged by Iran during the war. And both were operating before the Strait of Hormuz was closed, so the idea that these pipelines can replace the strait is not feasible.

Trump assassination attempt

It was shocking and depressing to read of another apparent attempt on the US president’s life – the third in two years – at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday. It was the first of these dinners that Trump had attended since 2011 when he was famously the butt of Barack Obama’s jokes in the by-now familiar comedy “roast” that is traditionally a highlight of the evening.

A man armed with two guns and a knife attempted to enter the ballroom where the dinner was being held, so the principals were evacuated and the dinner broke up in disarray. It later emerged that the would-be assassin had written a “manifesto” in which he revealed his hatred for the US president.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt blamed what she called “hateful and constant and violent rhetoric directed at President Trump”, which she said had “helped to legitimise this violence and bring us to this dark moment”. She pointed the finger at the US Democrats and “some in the media”.

Seeking to link the assassination attempt to political rhetoric is a pretty direct attack on the first amendment to the US constitution, which protects free speech, writes Eliza Bechtold, a US constitutional law expert at the University of Oxford. The Trump administration has a track record of lionising the first amendment when it suits them (the January 6 US Capitol rioters were characterised by some as peaceful protesters exercising first amendment rights). But attacking the media or the Democrats for their criticisms of Trump’s administration is, writes Bechtold, a denial of everything the first amendment was designed to do.

But not everyone in Trump’s Maga movement is now singing from the authorised songbook, writes Clodagh Harrington of the University of Cork. First it was Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a fervent Trump fan in the House of Representatives, now a bitter critic – who jumped ship in 2025, largely due to what she sees as his mishandling of the Epstein files.

More recently, it has been former Fox host Tucker Carlson, who has gone from introducing Trump at election rallies in 2024, to apologising to the US public for “misleading” them into voting for Trump. For Carlson, it’s the Iran war that flies in the face of one of Trump’s core election promises: no new wars.

Mind you, Harrington notes, Carlson’s move may also be dictated by a dream to launch his own presidential run in 2028. A TV personality running for president? Well, it has been known.

– ref. War in the Gulf and on US free speech – https://theconversation.com/war-in-the-gulf-and-on-us-free-speech-281937

May 1, 2026

Turning crisis into a super campaign: Lessons from KitKat

Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Farhan Mutaqin, PhD Researcher, University of Edinburgh

For many business owners, managing a crisis in silence is the default response. Companies generally prefer to deal with the fallout behind the scenes, following a simple mantra: resolve the issue and keep up the appearance that everything is “business as usual”.

However, this time, KitKat took a different approach. Instead of keeping it low-key, the brand took the incident public, transforming it into a campaign to engage the audience.

In just a few days, the incident gained worldwide traction on social media and news outlets. Audiences shifted from passive observers to active participants. This potential reputational threat ultimately became a record-breaking campaign with over 100 million views.

This is a prime example of how brands today have shifted from mere crisis management to using unexpected challenges as a way to engage audiences in real time.

What actually happened?

The story began in late March 2026, when a truck carrying over 413,000 KitKat bars — roughly 12 tonnes — disappeared in transit between central Italy and Poland.

The timing was critical. This “unlucky” incident took place only a week before Easter and right as KitKat was debuting as an official Formula 1 partner.

Take their “unique” official statement, for example. It was not your standard, boring corporate press release — it was written with a playful wink. At first, the internet was convinced it was an elaborate marketing stunt or an early April Fool’s joke, but KitKat soon confirmed: this was no prank.

In their statement, KitKat verified the theft and assured the public of product safety, but they did not stop there. By adding that the culprits had exceptional taste, they shifted the tone entirely. It was no longer a PR disaster to be fixed, it was a compelling story waiting to be told.

Working with VML, KitKat launched the Stolen KitKat Tracker, a digital tool where consumers could verify their chocolate’s origins using an eight-digit pack code.

The campaign triggered a massive cultural moment. #KitKatHeist became a trending topic, sparking millions of memes and inviting other major brands to join the conversation.

Rethinking the brand response to disruption

This case highlights the evolution of real-time marketing: the ability to pivot a crisis into a cultural moment. In today’s battle for attention (attention economy), KitKat proves that holding the public’s interest is just as vital as managing the brand’s reputation.

A key factor in the campaign’s effectiveness was direct audience involvement. By using the tracker, consumers moved beyond merely reading about the heist to actively taking part in it — a classic element of gamification. It was a simple but effective approach: it gave people a tangible reason to pick up a KitKat, engage with the brand, and, most importantly, share their results.

Consumers shifted from passive buyers to active participants in a live, unfolding story. This engagement did more than just capture attention. It drove sales and refreshed the brand’s connection with its customers.

At the same time, curiosity fuels the campaign, as the public remains unsure of how much is fact and how much is fiction. This uncertainty sparks deeper discussion and sharing, transforming a simple incident into an interactive experience while refocusing attention on the product itself.

The spillover effect: The power of collaborative brand storytelling

KitKat’s response did more than just spark attention. It created a cultural vacuum that other brands rushed to fill.

Ryanair, Domino’s, and Pizza Hut joined the party with their own official statements, each offering mock condolences while subtly promoting themselves in the same breath.

The result was a snowballing effect: every brand that joined extended the story’s lifespan, reached a new audience, and reflected that visibility back onto KitKat. What began as a single brand’s crisis evolved into a shared cultural moment, where participation became the price of entry.

Brands amplifying each other is no accident. It works because the original incident provided a clear, low-stakes hook for others to latch onto. Since there was no real harm involved, the humour was accessible to everyone; the stakes were low enough to serve as an open invitation for play.

Humorous crisis communication is not merely a stylistic choice; it is a conditional one. KitKat could pull it off because the incident was victimless, posed no safety risks, and involved an everyday product with no significant moral weight.

The future of the attention economy

Campaigns like this raise an important ethical question: where should brands draw the line between seizing opportunities and corporate responsibility?

KitKat’s response worked well not just because it was creative, but because of the crisis itself: it was low-stakes, harmless, and socially acceptable. Ultimately, not every disruption should become a campaign. In the world of real-time marketing, good judgment is just as important as acting quickly.

KitKat’s success proves we have moved beyond the era of one-way communication and into the era of “navigating moments”. In today’s landscape, a brand’s ability to balance instant visibility with genuine credibility is crucial to stand out.

The challenge is no longer avoiding a crisis, but knowing how to respond in a way that builds both attention and trust.

Para penulis tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi di luar afiliasi akademis yang telah disebut di atas.

– ref. Turning crisis into a super campaign: Lessons from KitKat – https://theconversation.com/turning-crisis-into-a-super-campaign-lessons-from-kitkat-281560

May 1, 2026

Arsenal might be choking again in England’s Premier League. Here are 4 psychological fixes

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Alberto Filgueiras, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, CQUniversity Australia

Arsenal is still on the top of the English Premier League ladder, but as in previous years, the Gunners might be crumbling just when a first title since 2003–04 is within touching distance.

In early April, Arsenal had a commanding grip on the title – nine points ahead of nearest rivals Manchester City. Now it’s just three (and City has played one less game).

This isn’t the first time Arsenal has lapsed at late stages in recent years: last season they finished second behind Liverpool. In 2023–4 they finished runners-up behind Manchester City. They were second again the year before.

Arsenal fans are no doubt expecting another dose of late-season heartbreak – it’s likely players and club staff are feeling similarly jittery. However, there are psychological strategies that could help them keep fighting until the final whistle.

Oh no, not again

The team led by Mikel Arteta recently eked out a 1-0 win against Newcastle United but before that had suffered two consecutive defeats: first against Bournemouth at home and then to Manchester City.

Looking closely at these two matches, they had a similar dynamic: Arsenal conceded the first goal in the first half, scored the equaliser a few minutes later, and suffered defeat in the second half.

This looks like a symptom. If you concede a goal earlier in a match, you need to put extra energy in to find an equaliser. At halftime, players should reset but the emotional cost of chasing an equaliser may impair their shift into a winning mindset.

This is choking under pressure: when fear of losing is bigger than the willingness to win.

Arsenal’s players have a team of sport psychologists and mindset coaches at their disposal.

Here are the four key psychological tools they will probably use to improve consistency in these final rounds of the season.

1. Work out your routines

Consistency is crucial for athletes, and predictability creates the space for players to become consistent.

The basic assumption behind the concept is: if you keep doing the same things, you can expect the same results. Regardless of the level of competitive pressure, sport performance tends to become more stable when pre-performance routines are applied.

These routines can take many forms: some athletes might prefer to take a shower, or pray, visualise or meditate before a match.

During games, many prefer to take a deep breath before a penalty (such as Cristiano Ronaldo) whereas others might fix their gaze on a single spot on the ball before shooting.

The key is, sport psychologists should help athletes tailor their pre-game or pre-shot routines to enhance performance.

2. Practise mindfulness

Mental distress can have a crushing impact on athletes.

When an athlete is emotionally stressed, the body tends to increase its levels of cortisol (the stress hormone), which leads to muscle rigidness. This can impact performance.

To counter this, leading stress education expert Jon Kabat-Zinn developed mindfulness-based stress reduction – a set of techniques that includes breathing meditation, deliberate focus on the present moment, and yoga-like body movements to improve emotional regulation.

When empirically tested in athletes, mindfulness meditation showed significant effectiveness to improve attentional control (the ability to focus attention on a task while avoiding distractions).

Applying mindfulness techniques alone or in combination can boost performance and may help Arsenal achieve the consistency needed in these final rounds.

3. Be positive with self-talk

Self-confidence and fear of mistakes can freeze athletes in high-stakes moments. This impacts decision-making and slows down execution.

For example, a full-back gets the ball on the defensive flank and scans for options. He can either play a penetrating pass to break the opposition’s defensive lines or pass backwards to his centre-back.

This a split-second decision – if he hesitates, the forward pass can be intercepted and the backward pass may come under pressure, leading to a costly mistake.

To tackle self-doubt, sport psychologists teach athletes to reframe their thoughts and create more effective task-oriented inner dialogues.

Research shows instructional self-talk can help athletes improve their performance.

So in the example above, what our full-back needs to do is, instead of thinking about the potential consequences of his actions, just tell himself to execute the pass.

If done properly, instructional self-talk can help Arsenal’s players choose the best options and execute them.

4. Get used to dealing with pressure

Matches are high-stakes, but training sessions tend to be focused on technical and tactical skills under lower pressure.

However, research shows embedding mild anxiety into training sessions helps athletes cope better under pressure.

Athletes who train under pressure often perform better than those who do not.

So Arsenal’s coaches should be looking to ramp up pressure in training sessions while ensuring the players can work with sport psychologists and mindset coaches.

A race in two

After the recent win against Newcastle, Arteta said:

I don’t expect after 22 years not winning it that it is going to be a path of roses and beautiful music around it. It is going to be like this and we are ready for it.

Whether they are ready for it remains to be seen. But if the Gunners are to finally taste the ultimate success in this season’s Premier League, a combination of these techniques might help them cope under pressure, avoid choking, and finally lift the trophy.

Assuming, of course, Manchester City allows it.

Alberto Filgueiras 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. Arsenal might be choking again in England’s Premier League. Here are 4 psychological fixes – https://theconversation.com/arsenal-might-be-choking-again-in-englands-premier-league-here-are-4-psychological-fixes-281224

April 30, 2026

Synthetic biology promised to rewrite life – with the death of its pioneer, J. Craig Venter, how close are scientists?

Source: The Conversation – USA – By André O. Hudson, Dean of the College of Science, Professor of Biochemistry, Rochester Institute of Technology

First came the Human Genome Project, then came the field of synthetic biology. Alena Butusava/iStock via Getty Images Plus

When scientist J. Craig Venter and his team announced in 2010 that they had created the first cell controlled by a fully synthetic genome, it marked a turning point in how scientists think about life.

For the first time, DNA – the molecule that carries the instructions for life – had been written on a computer, assembled in a laboratory and used to control a living cell. The achievement suggested something profound: Life might not only be understood but designed.

A biologist widely recognized for his groundbreaking contributions to genomics, including leading efforts to sequence the first draft of the human genome, Venter and his team’s successful creation of the first synthetic bacterial cell is considered pivotal to the field of synthetic biology.

J. Craig Venter in a suit at a conference, looking off-camera — J. Craig Venter was a decorated scientist and entrepreneur.
Mauricio Ramirez/Science History Institute via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

By combining biology and engineering, synthetic biology seeks to design and build new biological systems or redesign existing ones for useful purposes. Rather than only observing how life works, scientists use tools such as DNA synthesis and genetic engineering to “program” cells to perform specific tasks, such as producing vaccines, developing sustainable fuels or detecting environmental toxins.

But how far has the field gone since Venter’s original synthetic bacterial cell?

As a biochemist who uses genomics in my teaching and research, I am interested in understanding what this shift in biology means and how far it has actually taken scientific innovation. Following Venter’s death on April 29, 2026, it is worth revisiting that moment and asking whether synthetic biology has delivered on its promise.

What is synthetic biology?

For much of the 20th century, biology focused on decoding life.

The discovery of DNA’s structure in 1953 revealed how genetic information is stored. Decades later, the Human Genome Project that Venter helped accelerate mapped the full set of human genes.

But Venter and others pushed the field further: If DNA could be read like code, could it also be written?

This idea underpins synthetic biology, which aims to design and construct biological systems rather than simply study them. Instead of modifying one gene at a time, researchers began exploring whether entire genomes could be built and inserted into cells.

Synthetic biology offers both tantalizing promises and terrifying risks.

In 2010, Venter’s team demonstrated that this was possible. They constructed a bacterial genome and used it to take control of a living cell. While the cell itself was not built entirely from scratch, their work showed that the instructions for life could be engineered.

In other words, synthetic biologists were moving from reading life to rewriting it entirely.

Big promises and bold expectations

Synthetic biology has already led to a range of promising outcomes across medicine, energy and environmental science.

Researchers have engineered microbes to produce lifesaving drugs such as artemisinin, an antimalarial compound, and to manufacture sustainable biofuels that could reduce reliance on fossil fuels. In addition, researchers are using synthetic biology to design organisms capable of detecting and breaking down environmental pollutants, offering new tools for bioremediation.

At the heart of these ideas was a powerful analogy: If biology could be treated like software, then designing organisms might one day resemble writing code.

This vision attracted significant investment and policy attention. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has highlighted synthetic biology’s potential to address challenges in multiple industries while also raising important ethical and safety considerations. For example, synthetic biology techniques could be used to develop biological weapons and could unintentionally harm ecosystems and human health.

Progress slower than expected

Despite this progress, synthetic biology has not fully realized its early ambitions. One major reason is the complexity of living systems.

Early approaches to synthetic biology treated cells as modular systems, where components could be predictably exchanged. In practice, biological systems are highly interconnected. Gene interactions are difficult to predict, and results observed in controlled laboratory conditions do not always scale to real-world environments.

This challenge has been particularly evident in areas such as biofuels, where translating laboratory successes into industrial-scale production has proved difficult.

There are also more fundamental limitations. Scientists still cannot construct a fully living organism from nonliving components alone. Even Venter’s synthetic cell depended on an existing biological system to function.

As a result, the goal of creating life entirely from scratch remains out of reach for now.

New questions and emerging risks

As technology has advanced, it has also raised new ethical and security concerns. The same tools used to design beneficial organisms could potentially be misused.

Synthetic biology is widely recognized as a dual-use field, where advances in gene editing, DNA synthesis and bioengineering may enable not only medical and environmental innovations but also the creation or modification of harmful organisms.

The increasing accessibility of these technologies further lowers barriers to misuse, making biosecurity threats more distributed and difficult to control. At the same time, governance frameworks often struggle to keep pace with rapid technological developments, leaving gaps in oversight and international coordination.

Microscopy image of a grey spherical blob with a rough surface of spherical protuberances — This synthetic ‘minimal cell’ has been stripped of all but its most essential bacterial genes – and can still evolve.
Tom Deerinck and Mark Ellisman of the National Center for Imaging and Microscopy Research at the University of California at San Diego

Beyond immediate risks, broader questions remain about how far humans should go in redesigning life and what unintended consequences such changes could have for ecosystems. Engineered organisms may introduce risks such as genetic contamination and ecosystem disruption, which would harm biodiversity and ecosystem services.

These concerns are likely to become more pressing as the technology behind synthetic biology continues to develop, particularly as emerging tools such as artificial intelligence accelerate the design of new biological systems.

Venter’s legacy

The implications of the idea that life could be engineered rather than just observed is still unfolding.

Synthetic biology has not yet delivered a world of fully programmable organisms solving global challenges. But it has changed expectations, both within science and beyond, about what might be possible in biological design.

In that sense, the impact of synthetic biology is already clear: It has altered not just how scientists study life but how society imagines its future.

Venter’s legacy includes the questions he made unavoidable: how far scientists should go in designing life, who gets to decide, and what responsibilities come with that power. The answers remain unsettled. But the trajectory seems to be that science is learning, cautiously and imperfectly, to author life.

André O. Hudson receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation

– ref. Synthetic biology promised to rewrite life – with the death of its pioneer, J. Craig Venter, how close are scientists? – https://theconversation.com/synthetic-biology-promised-to-rewrite-life-with-the-death-of-its-pioneer-j-craig-venter-how-close-are-scientists-281963

April 30, 2026

In Colombia and Brazil, presidential candidates offer old solutions to old problems

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Guilherme Casarões, Associate Professor of Brazilian Studies, Florida International University

On May 31st, Colombian voters will go to the polls with Abelardo de la Espriella – criminal lawyer, self-styled outsider, and self-described “Tiger” – securing his place in the runoff against left-wing Iván Cepeda. In Brazil, Senator Flávio Bolsonaro – the son of incarcerated former President Jair Bolsonaro – is also busy, touring Washington, Dallas, and El Salvador, burnishing a “Bolsonaro 2.0” brand ahead of October elections.

The two men have never appeared on the same stage, but they are running similar campaigns, reading from similar scripts, and looking toward the same set of foreign role models. In a familiar recipe, their platforms combine free-market economics, conservative values, and a tough approach to crime.

De la Espriella proposes reducing the size of the state by up to 40%, eliminating hundreds of thousands of public contracts and positions, and slashing taxes. He considers himself a major political admirer of Argentina’s President Javier Milei, someone who, in his eyes, has charted the solution to the hemisphere’s economic problems.

Flávio Bolsonaro has presented his pre-candidacy as a direct continuation of the legacy of his father, who was arrested last year for attempting a coup d’état following his defeat in the 2022 elections. Bolsonaro’s oldest son describes his project as the return to a market-oriented, Pro-Washington, and nationalistic platform.

Economy, security, and foreign policy

Although the language varies at times, the ideology that drives both campaigns does not. Both Bolsonaro’s son and De la Espriella embrace a combination of right-wing conservative security stances and the same neoliberal economic doctrine that was tried across Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s, showcasing a repacking of old views to try and solve old problems.

On security, both candidates have vowed to follow the steps of El Savador’s strongman president Nayib Bukele. Flávio Bolsonaro, after visiting El Salvador’s notorious CECOT mega-prison in person, called Bukele’s approach a “radical transformation” and demanded the construction of “many, many prisons” in Brazil to address a deficit he estimates at 500,000 beds.

De la Espriella is even more explicit: “Against the narcoterrorism that Petro has coddled, an iron fist like Bukele’s,” he has declared, promising to bomb guerrilla encampments and build high-security mega-prisons modeled on El Salvador’s CECOT. He also proposes a new prison corps staffed by military reservists and veterans, administered privately, removing the current penal institute which he describes as “a cancer for Colombia.”

On foreign policy, De la Espriella has declared that any relationship Colombia has with Venezuela must be conducted “through the United States”, essentially ignoring the Venezuelan Government. This is a remarkable formulation that would break tradition with previous Colombian foreign policy towards Caracas, which was marked by acting mostly in an independent fashion of its allies in the region. He wants to strengthen the military alliance with Washington and Tel Aviv, and has called on the Trump Administration to prosecute and extradite incumbent President Gustavo Petro over supposed drug charges.

Flávio Bolsonaro, meanwhile, appeared at CPAC in Dallas, supporting the alliance with President Trump. He openly positioned Brazil as a bulwark in Washington’s geopolitical strategy to reduce Chinese influence in the hemisphere and offered up his country’s strategic resources to this end. Trump’s own political adviser, Jason Miller, declared Flávio the “next president” of Brazil from the conference stage.

What is striking about all of this is not just the content of these proposals but their explicitly transnational character. As they aim for the Presidency, De la Espriella and Flávio Bolsonaro are aiming for membership in a global conservative movement, constructing their political identities by association with leaders like Trump, Bukele, and Milei.

How far can their promises go?

This transnational strategy, however, has already shown some limits. When Eduardo Bolsonaro lobbied Washington to impose tariffs and sanctions on Brazil’s government and economy, 57% of Brazilians disapproved of what he was doing to their country. Instead of strengthening the Bolsonaro brand, this episode handed left-wing president Lula Da Silva a nationalist narrative that the right had monopolized for years. All while presidents Lula and Trump would go on to partially reconcile not that long after.

“Bukelizing” security can also be problematic. Importing the Salvadoran model to much bigger countries, whose public security issues are complex and widespread, would be an invitation to the kind of arbitrary State power that Colombian and Brazilian democracies spent decades trying to contain. By tapping into Bukele’s youthful appeal and increasing popularity, Bolsonaro and De la Espriella vow to promote potentially authoritarian solutions under a veil of efficiency.

There is a real frustration at the root of these candidacies, and it would be a mistake to dismiss it. Colombia and Brazil are countries where insecurity is existential for millions of people, where inequality persists despite decades of formal progress, where institutional corruption has eroded confidence in the political class.

Even though De la Espriella and Flávio Bolsonaro are tapping into genuine concerns, the solutions they offer are not new responses to old problems. Economic shock therapy in largely unequal societies, militarized crackdowns in countries with a long history of institutional violence, and a lack of inherent agency in terms of foreign policy are just old responses to old problems. This time, retooled with new aesthetics and a new international support network.

Os autores não prestam consultoria, trabalham, possuem ações ou recebem financiamento de qualquer empresa ou organização que se beneficiaria deste artigo e não revelaram qualquer vínculo relevante além de seus cargos acadêmicos.

– ref. In Colombia and Brazil, presidential candidates offer old solutions to old problems – https://theconversation.com/in-colombia-and-brazil-presidential-candidates-offer-old-solutions-to-old-problems-281854

April 30, 2026

Gerrymandering is unpopular with Florida voters – my recent survey shows why DeSantis pushed it through anyway

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel A. Smith, Professor of Political Science, University of Florida

State Rep. Angie Nixon, D-Fla., speaks against mid-decade redistricting during a special session of the Florida Legislature on April 29, 2026. AP Photo/Mike Stewart

The Sunshine State has joined Texas, California and a handful of other states in the battle of mid-decade redistricting.

On April 29, 2026, in a near party-line vote, the Florida Legislature adopted new congressional maps drawn by a staffer of Gov. Ron DeSantis. The GOP-led effort could lead to four more of Florida’s 28 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives turning Republican. Florida redrew its maps with the same underlying population data just four years ago.

Mid-decade redistricting in Florida was all but inevitable once Donald Trump made partisan map-drawing a national priority. Florida’s Republican legislators had little incentive – or political cover – to resist.

I’m a political scientist, and my research focuses on voting and elections. I’ve served as an expert in redistricting cases in Florida, and I’ve been tracking Florida voters’ opinions on DeSantis’ 2026 redistricting efforts.

What Florida voters think about gerrymandering overall

University of Florida Ph.D. student Rolland Grady and I conducted a representative survey of more than 2,300 Florida registered voters drawn randomly from the publicly available Florida voter file.

Participants had one week, from April 6-13, 2026, to fill out our web-based survey linked to an email invitation. We did not offer any incentives to respondents providing us with their opinions.

The results show broad, principled opposition to partisan gerrymandering in Florida. Roughly two-thirds of Florida voters we contacted said they oppose redrawing district lines to advantage a political party.

What they think about their own party gerrymandering

But beyond gauging how Florida voters feel about gerrymandering in theory, we wanted to see how they responded to actual scenarios of mid-decade redistricting, and whether it mattered to them which party was leading the redistricting.

So we designed an experimental survey: Before respondents were asked how they felt about mid-decade redistricting, each participant was randomly shown one of five different statements.

The control version of this statement read, “The redrawing of congressional district boundaries typically occurs every 10 years, immediately following the U.S. Census.”

The other versions gave that control statement, and then added information about a particular state – California, Texas or Florida – that was redrawing its maps, and which party was endorsing that gerrymandering.

Finally, there was a version of the statement that included the control statement, told voters that Republican Ron DeSantis was endorsing the redistricting in Florida, and then added a third line of text: “As you might know, in 2010 citizens in Florida passed the Fair Districts Amendment with bipartisan support of more than 60% of the vote.”

According to our survey results, Florida Democrats are intensely opposed to gerrymandering for partisan purposes when it is framed as benefiting Republicans. This strong opposition may increase the focus of big donors on Florida, helping to drive fundraising for Democratic candidates. It may also mobilize some Democrats to come out to the polls in November. But when it comes to persuasion, most Democrats who plan to vote in the midterm elections are already highly engaged and unlikely to support GOP candidates anyway.

Florida Republicans also oppose mid-decade redistricting in the abstract. Not surprisingly, support for drawing lines to help the GOP increases when framed as something DeSantis is pursuing, but only by 15 percentage points.

This suggests some latent, principled discomfort among GOP voters. On the other hand, strong messaging from Republican leaders, particularly Trump, in the run-up to the election may override concerns about fairness. Partisanship and leader-motivated behavior will drive many Republican voters to rationalize the GOP’s effort to increase their congressional margins by four seats.

Where independent voters fall

Finally, our poll finds that Florida independent voters have strong and consistently principled opposition to partisan gerrymandering; their support rarely exceeds 15% under any condition. But in Florida, independent voters, who are often registered with no party affiliation, are less politically organized or active than registered Republicans and Democrats. And it’s likely that these voters redrawn into a new congressional district will be even less knowledgeable about who represents them when it’s time to pick candidates.

It is possible that Democrats will be able to use GOP gerrymandering in November to get independent voters to the polls and oppose Republican candidates. But opposition to gaming the system is just one of many factors that will shape how independents vote. Other issues, such as concerns over the rising cost of living, immigration, foreign policy and presidential approval, usually play a much greater role in determining candidate choice in midterm elections.

The Florida GOP’s mid-decade redistricting gambit reveals a troubling truth about American democracy: Voters oppose partisan gerrymandering in principle but tolerate it in practice when their side benefits.

So even though a majority of Florida voters disapprove of the GOP’s effort to tilt the state’s map even further toward electing Republicans, I’m not expecting widespread punishment of Republican incumbents due to these redistricting efforts.

DeSantis is betting that Trump’s influence will paper over GOP voters’ discomfort, that Democrats will stay demoralized, and that independents will stay home in November.

How GOP gerrymandering could backfire

But just because the GOP’s gerrymandering won’t sway voters away from their party doesn’t mean it won’t end up hurting them at the polls.

DeSantis’ map crams Democrats into just four of 28 districts – a high-stakes gamble that requires lightning to strike twice. To succeed for the GOP, the map requires both 2024’s Democratic and independent voter apathy and 2022’s swing to the right by independents.

But midterms tend to bring lower turnout, and today’s economic squeeze plus Trump’s dismal approval ratings make another 2022-style GOP surge highly unlikely.

The worst case for the GOP would be a 2018-style blue wave. It would destroy DeSantis’ gerrymander and could potentially flip three South Florida GOP seats and two in Central Florida to Democrats. Aggressive redistricting may meet unintended consequences come November.

See you in court

Florida Democrats and other groups will likely sue under the state constitution’s Fair Districts amendments, which were adopted in 2010 by Florida voters of all political stripes. These amendments to the Florida Constitution expressly prohibit redrawing districts with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.

But DeSantis and his lawyers are setting the stage to defend the mid-decade partisan gerrymander. They fully expect that the Florida Supreme Court will strike down the Fair Districts amendments’ ban on partisan redistricting. The odds are stacked against the citizens of Florida who support fair districts.

In my view, the real losers here are the Florida voters, particularly those who approved the state’s Fair Districts amendments in 2010, which were a bipartisan triumph.

Daniel A. Smith is an Advisory Board Member of Common Cause Florida and President of ElectionSmith.

– ref. Gerrymandering is unpopular with Florida voters – my recent survey shows why DeSantis pushed it through anyway – https://theconversation.com/gerrymandering-is-unpopular-with-florida-voters-my-recent-survey-shows-why-desantis-pushed-it-through-anyway-281792

April 30, 2026

‘Executive power is subject to checks and balances’: why King Charles cited Magna Carta in the US Congress

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicholas Vincent, Professor of Medieval History, University of East Anglia

In his speech to Congress during a trip to the US to mark the country’s 250th anniversary, King Charles made repeated references to Magna Carta, the medieval English charter that laid the foundations for the modern rule of law. Dating back to 1215, Magna Carta also established for the first time that the monarch was not above the law. Charles used his speech to reference the common Anglo-American tradition of law, and of how the charter has been cited in more than 160 US judgments of the US Supreme Court.

It was notable that the king chose to cite this ancient charter, which stands as a symbol of protecting freedom and guarding against tyranny, at such a tricky moment for US-UK relations. Perhaps not surprisingly in the context of an erratic and controversial US president, the remarks from the king were well received by parts of the audience.

In fact, Charles enjoyed a standing ovation when he stated that Magna Carta was the very “foundation of the principal that executive power is subject to checks and balances”. In other words, it serves as the basis for the rule of law.

Checks, balances and applause for the king.

Charles is only the third ruling British monarch to visit the US. But during all three visits, Magna Carta has been trumpeted in support of a supposedly very special alliance. King George VI, Charles’ grandfather, began this in 1939. Back then, he visited the New York World Fair where Lincoln Cathedral’s original Magna Carta of 1215 was on display as the centrepiece of the British pavilion.

War broke out that same year, and so Lincoln’s Magna Carta became stranded in the US. It was guarded in the gold depository at Fort Knox, Kentucky, until it could be returned to England in 1946.

At a low point in British fortunes following both the fall of France and the Blitz, in the summer of 1941, prime minister Winston Churchill even considered gifting it to the American people. Had he done so, this would have served as a reminder of America’s responsibilities to war-torn Europe.

In 1976, when Charles’ mother, Queen Elizabeth II, visited Washington for the bicentenary of American independence, there was again talk – not least from the British prime minister Harold Wilson – of gifting a Magna Carta to the US.

In the end, this was resolved by the presentation of a replica crafted in gold and enamel (which is now somewhat sheepishly displayed in the crypt of the US Capitol).

Legacy in US statute

In all of this, Magna Carta for many Americans remains an icon of the rule of law, or what in the US is called “due process”. Where only four of the charter’s original 60 clauses are still operative under English law, the entire text was incorporated in the statute books of no less than 17 US states, beginning with South Carolina in 1836 and ending with North Dakota in 1943.

Images of England’s King John presenting Magna Carta to his barons are carved or painted in many state capitols or court houses, including on the vast bronze doors of the Supreme Court building in Washington.

The US National Archives (thanks to a long-term loan), and Harvard Law School both possess originals of the English charter. That of the National Archives is via a reissue of 1297, sold to the presidential candidate Ross Perot in 1984, while Harvard’s is from a 1300 reissue, purchased in 1946 as a mere “copy” for US$27.50 (around £7 at the time). This was reauthenticated in 2025 as a lost (and therefore extremely valuable) original.

united states 5 cent postage stamp commemorating the 750th anniversary of magna carta in 1965 — The US issued a commemorative postage stamp in 1965 to mark the 750th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta.
SUDARSHAN BHATLA/Shutterstock

And in the UK, an acre of Runnymede in England, where Magna Carta was sealed, was granted to the American people in perpetuity in 1965. This was done both in honour of a shared respect for the principle of liberty, and as a memorial to President John F. Kennedy, assassinated in 1963.

Of course, there are aspects of this story that belong more to the realm of myth than reality. For instance, of Magna Carta’s many appearances in US supreme court judgments, a surprising number cite it not as a touchstone of liberty or the rights of man, but in defence of commercial or corporate privilege.

Even so, the standing ovation for King Charles and his remarks about checks and balances suggest that Magna Carta remains a potent symbol. In what was widely received as a pitch-perfect speech, the king reminded the land of the free that the price of US (or indeed UK) freedom is not only eternal vigilance, but a healthy respect for the shared Anglo-American past.

Nicholas Vincent 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. ‘Executive power is subject to checks and balances’: why King Charles cited Magna Carta in the US Congress – https://theconversation.com/executive-power-is-subject-to-checks-and-balances-why-king-charles-cited-magna-carta-in-the-us-congress-281887

April 30, 2026

Trump uses assassination attempt to justify his assault on first amendment rights to free speech

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Eliza Bechtold, Programmes Manager and Research Fellow, the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford

The Trump administration has called on TV network ABC to “take a stand” after a joke from its late night comedy host Jimmy Kimmel offended the US president and first lady.

Two days before the White House Correpondents’ dinner on April 25, Kimmel broadcast what he said was a “roast” of the Trump administration. Roasts are typically quite savage comedic attacks which have become a traditional part of the dinner.

Trump, who was famously the target of jokes from former president, Barack Obama, at a dinner in 2011, had never attended the dinner while in office. This year he opted to attend, but the comedian’s spot was taken by what was described as a “mentalist”.

So Kimmel said he decided to supply the roast on his show as an “all-American” version of the Correspondents’ Dinner. In what he said was a joke about the 24-year age difference between the couple, he described Melania Trump as “having a glow like an expectant widow”. But after a would-be assassin tried to launch a murderous attack two days later at the dinner, the Trumps have demanded his sacking.

“Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behaviour at the expense of our community,” Melania Trump wrote in a post on X.

But it appears that ABC, a subsidiary of Disney, is instead standing by Kimmel, who has not been taken off air, in contrast to an episode in September 2025 when Kimmel was suspended after comments he made following the death of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk, a close friend of the Trumps. After a public outcry, ABC relented and restored Kimmel’s show.

In response, Brendan Carr, the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has brought forward a review of ABC’s station licences, which were previously not scheduled until 2028 or later. Carr’s actions follow a press conference at the White House on April 26 at which press secretary Karoline Leavitt said coverage critical of Trump, including from his Democrat opponents, was responsible for the rise in political violence in the US by creating what she called a “leftwing cult of hatred”.

These examples highlight the politicisation of “free speech” by the Trump administration as a cudgel to silence disfavoured viewpoints under the guise protecting the public from harm.

First amendment protection for free speech

But these political debates are becoming increasingly distanced from the first amendment. That is, the interpretation of the first amendment by the Supreme Court and the protections it provides to individuals and entities, including media outlets and broadcast companies, from government interference. The wider this gulf becomes, the greater the space between the principles underlying the expansive protections afforded to speech in the US and the public’s understanding of the democratic principles that underpin these protections.

Jimmy Kimmel defends his joke about the Trumps.

This is more important than ever in the Trump era. Actions taken by the administration to target broadcast networks and individuals for political speech are precisely what the first amendment protects against. It was designed, among other things, to protect individuals, entities and the press from government interference by creating an open marketplace in which ideas compete freely.

This is particularly true for dissenting political speech, which is the core of the first amendment. This explains why government interference with speech based on “the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker” – known as “viewpoint discrimination” – is expressly prohibited.

Additionally, whether and to what extent speech is offensive is irrelevant to the protection it enjoys. When it comes to the value of public debate, the first amendment is not neutral. Indeed, as a Supreme Court judgment, Baumgartner v. United States (1944) found: “One of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures.” Moreover a more recent judgment, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988), found that “robust political debate” is expressly encouraged, given that such debate “is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office”.

Importantly, the Supreme Court found in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) that such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate and that public figures as well as public officials will be subjected to “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks”.

The motive of the speaker is also irrelevant, as the Supreme Court held in Hustler v Falwell that while a “bad motive” may be deemed controlling for tort liability and in other areas of the law, “the first amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures”.

Stakes couldn’t be higher

By expressly linking Democrat criticisms of the president, and pointed critiques (however off-colour) from Kimmel and his fellow political satirists to an upsurge in political violence, the Trump administration is trying to silence criticism of its actions. But it’s also clear that this behaviour is precisely what the first amendment prohibits.

Ironically, the media often portrays these episodes as “feuds” between Trump and his critics.

But when viewed through the lens of the first amendment and its core values in this context, the stakes are much higher. These episodes constitute an effort to wrest control of public discourse by interfering in the marketplace of ideas in order silence those critical of the government.

And history tells us that a government that can silence its critics often does so in pursuit of unchecked power. Viewed through this lens, perhaps the greatest threat to American democracy is the government itself.

Eliza Bechtold 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. Trump uses assassination attempt to justify his assault on first amendment rights to free speech – https://theconversation.com/trump-uses-assassination-attempt-to-justify-his-assault-on-first-amendment-rights-to-free-speech-281757

April 30, 2026

Why do polar bears approach human infrastructure? The answer is more complex than we thought

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Douglas Clark, Associate Professor in Human Dimensions of Environment & Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan

Polar bears are intensely curious animals. That curiosity often brings them into contact with people and can put both species at risk from one another.

As the Arctic climate warms, some polar bears are spending more time on shore, away from the sea ice habitats they rely on to hunt seals. As the bears are under nutritional stress due to ice loss, some wonder if they’re being forced to take more risks around people as they seek food, increasing interactions and conflicts between polar bears and people. But until now, there’re been little research into this relationship.

Between 2011 and 2021, research colleagues and I placed trail cameras at three camps in Wapusk National Park in Manitoba and, later, at the nearby Churchill Northern Studies Centre (CNSC) to see how often polar bears visited these sites on the west coast of Hudson Bay.

The project began at the invitation of Parks Canada when their newly constructed field camps at Broad River and Owl River turned out to receive more bear visits than they expected. Those camps had been located away from the coast to reduce the likelihood of polar bear encounters, so answering this immediate question was a priority.

We investigated whether human activity, the length of the ice-free season — or both — were influencing polar bear visits. In approximately 80 per cent of the bear visits, our photos showed enough of the animal that we could rate their body condition using an established fatness index.

We observed 580 bear visits with our cameras, mostly between July and November, when bears are well-known to be abundant in the area. What we found was that human presence at the camps and the CNSC didn’t have any effect on the number of bear visits. The length of the ice-free season each year, however, had a notable effect.

It’s all about ice

The ice-free season can be longer if sea ice breaks up earlier in spring than normal, forms later in fall than normal, or both. During our study period, there was no long-term trend in the ice-free season’s length, but it did vary a lot year to year. We found that the longer western Hudson Bay remained ice-free in a year, the more frequently bears visited our study sites.

Poor body condition is considered an indicator of nutritional stress, and a healthy body condition to survive on-shore fasting is critical for polar bear survival.

But rather than getting visits from hungrier bears that were detectably thinner — which is what we had expected — we found that the more time bears were off the ice, the more likely all bears were to approach our study sites, regardless of their nutritional health.

This result was unexpected since other research shows underweight polar bears are more likely to attack people, which has been taken to mean that those particular bears would take more chances to find food and so be more likely to approach or prey on people.

Instead, what we’re seeing is that body condition may play a different role. Rather than influencing the bears to seek human interactions, body condition might instead influence whether interactions between people and polar bears escalate.

In other words, if polar bears are around people to begin with, a skinny bear might be more likely to aggressively try to obtain human food sources, or even prey on people, than a bear under less nutritional stress.

We were also surprised not to see many lone sub-adult bears in our photos. Those other studies have also shown that they’re usually the ones most likely to come into conflict with people.

These observations, though, are consistent with other research on this sub-population. As the ice-free season has on average lengthened in western Hudson Bay, the production and survival of juvenile bears has dropped. Our unexpected results, then, are probably due to there simply not being many young bears in the population during our study.

Scientific and Indigenous observations

Our findings suggest that sea ice loss probably doesn’t lead to more interactions with people just because polar bears are thinner or hungrier, so we need to better understand what can cause interactions to worsen into attacks.

What does this mean for current approaches to reducing the risk of polar bear-human conflicts? Bringing it back to the Parks Canada’s original question, it appears that the likelihood of bear visits to their camps isn’t affected by anything under human control, but the outcomes of any bear visits that do take place certainly are.

What we found may also help explain why scientific explanations and Indigenous and local observations of polar bear-human interactions have differed. Scientific literature has long maintained that poor body condition drives polar bears into northern communities.

However, documented observations from those communities themselves indicate bears who come into communities are not necessarily in poorer condition than would be expected.

Our findings align more closely with Indigenous observations, highlighting how untested assumptions can, through repetition in scientific literature, solidify into accepted wisdom.

Douglas Clark receives funding from ArcticNet, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Genome Prairie/Genome Canada, the Belmont Forum, the Churchill Northern Studies Centre and the University of Saskatchewan.

– ref. Why do polar bears approach human infrastructure? The answer is more complex than we thought – https://theconversation.com/why-do-polar-bears-approach-human-infrastructure-the-answer-is-more-complex-than-we-thought-279721