Comprendre les biais de perception de l’Iran par les États-Unis depuis 1979

Source: The Conversation – France in French (3) – By Clément Therme, Chargé de cours, Sciences Po

Voilà plus de 45 ans que les États-Unis et l’Iran sont engagés dans un conflit acharné. En 1979, le régime du Shah, allié de Washington depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale, est renversé par la Révolution islamique qui aboutit à l’instauration d’un régime théocratique dirigé par un Guide suprême – l’ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeyni jusqu’à son décès en 1989, l’ayatollah Ali Khamenei depuis lors. Peu après la chute du Shah, l’interminable prise d’otages à l’ambassade des États-Unis à Téhéran (novembre 1979-janvier 1981) est le premier épisode spectaculaire d’un bras de fer qui a culminé, cet été, quand l’administration Trump a directement bombardé les installations nucléaires iraniennes.

Dans Téhéran-Washington 1979-2025. Le Grand Satan à l’épreuve de la Révolution islamique, qui vient de paraître aux éditions Hémisphères, Maisonneuve et Larose, Clément Therme, chercheur spécialiste du monde iranien, enseignant à Sciences Po, propose une analyse approfondie de l’évolution des relations diplomatiques entre les deux États. Extraits.


Depuis 1979, la politique iranienne de Washington s’est heurtée à la complexité du régime de la République islamique, à son autoritarisme fragmenté et à sa stratégie de fuite en avant permanente sur la scène internationale. Les solutions proposées pour résoudre le casse-tête iranien par les démocrates et les républicains sont, jusqu’à la présidence Obama, le fruit d’un consensus trans-partisan. Cette stratégie iranienne de Washington a souffert de deux biais significatifs.

Le premier, reconnu par William Burns ([secrétaire d’État adjoint des États-Unis de 2011 à 2014]), est d’avoir cherché à jouer une faction contre l’autre. Cette idée occidentale se fonde sur l’hypothèse selon laquelle une politique de dialogue va automatiquement provoquer un renforcement du camp « modéré » au sein de l’establishment khomeyniste à Téhéran.

Cet objectif de « modérer » le comportement du régime iranien est poursuivi au moyen de l’outil des sanctions. L’approche de la « carotte et du bâton » vise alors à faire évoluer son adversaire par des incitations (la levée des sanctions). Cette première hypothèse d’une réactivité du régime, par un calcul économique coûts/bénéfices, ne se construit pas à partir d’une étude approfondie du logiciel idéologique des élites révolutionnaires au pouvoir depuis 1979. En effet, le calcul des responsables de la République islamique est le suivant : tirer avantage des liens économiques avec l’Occident pour renforcer les relations avec les rivaux des États-Unis : la Chine et la Russie. La tentative de manipulation occidentale est donc, à son tour, instrumentalisée par le régime iranien pour réaliser son agenda idéologique sur la scène internationale.

Cette hypothèse du « changement de comportement » (behaviour change), provoqué depuis Washington, DC, se fonde sur une évaluation trop optimiste, de notre point de vue, de la possibilité d’une réforme du système politique iranien, ou, du moins, de la perspective d’un renforcement des « modérés » au sein de la République islamique. S’il n’est pas faux de constater un renforcement des groupes politiques favorables au rapprochement économique avec les Européens au cours des périodes d’« ouverture », il n’en reste pas moins que les partisans khomeynistes du dialogue restent sous l’autorité de l’État profond.

Autrement dit, la quête occidentale d’un ayatollah Gorbatchev est vaine. C’est le point faible de la réflexion iranienne des partisans du dialogue en Occident. En effet, le risque de voir émerger un dirigeant politique suivant le modèle de Mikhail Gorbatchev a été identifié par l’État profond iranien qui s’est efforcé, depuis les années 1990, de cantonner ces idées de réforme à l’État superficiel iranien. L’analogie historique a même été utilisée par les opposants conservateurs à Mohammad Khatami dès son élection [au poste de président] en 1997.

Le second biais des partisans du dialogue à Washington, DC, est d’avoir sous-estimé la contestation populaire au régime théocratique en se focalisant sur le Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Cette obsession pour le programme nucléaire apparaît d’ailleurs de plus en plus détachée des réalités iraniennes, depuis l’automne 2022, alors que l’on assiste à un mouvement généralisé de contestation de l’ordre islamiste en Iran. Cette « religion du JCPOA » au sein des élites démocrates à Washington se construit autour de l’idée de la nécessité absolue de donner la priorité aux questions stratégiques par rapport à une approche régionale.

Leur perception du programme nucléaire iranien est celle d’un désir d’acquisition par Téhéran de systèmes d’armes nucléaires qu’il faut contrôler par la voie diplomatique. Cette approche réductrice des enjeux iraniens doit se comprendre par le profil de spécialistes du nucléaire des responsables américains et de leur absence d’expertise linguistique sur les questions iraniennes.

L’exemple de Robert Malley est édifiant : il n’a aucune compétence universitaire sur les affaires iraniennes et, il a été perçu, pendant l’exercice de ses fonctions entre 2021 et 2023, par une partie des opposants iraniens en exil, comme confondant son rôle en tant que conseiller en charge de l’Iran avec un travail sur le seul dossier du JCPOA. La fin de ses fonctions a suscité une controverse au sein du Congrès et a fait l’objet de nombreuses analyses critiques dans les médias persanophones basés à l’étranger. Son objectif de poursuivre un accord sur le nucléaire iranien à tout prix semble lui avoir coûté sa carrière politique.

Alors, comment expliquer ces angles morts de l’analyse démocrate sur l’Iran ? En premier lieu, il convient de mentionner le manque de connaissance de l’Iran contemporain, en dépit des efforts commencés, en 2006, avec le programme des Iran watchers. De plus, il existe une dimension réactive déterminante par rapport aux stratégies précédentes de changement de régime qui sont assimilées à un acte de guerre sans plus de considération.

Par ailleurs, en 2008-2009, l’Administration américaine fait le constat de l’incapacité des régimes de sanctions économiques à changer la politique nucléaire de Téhéran et elle sort de l’illusion du recours à l’option militaire. En effet, sous l’Administration Bush junior, il y avait cette conviction que seul un changement de régime pourrait garantir la non-prolifération nucléaire au Moyen-Orient. Il s’agissait alors d’accélérer la démocratisation de l’Iran pour limiter les effets négatifs de sa nucléarisation. Si l’objectif apparaît souhaitable, la peur des démocrates de l’ouverture d’un nouveau front militaire au Moyen-Orient l’emporte alors sur la défense des idéaux démocratiques. C’est l’occasion manquée de l’administration Obama avec le Mouvement Vert en 2009.

Ce refus de penser le changement de régime à Washington, DC, est avant tout déterminé par des considérations de politique intérieure américaine. Même si les débats sur le dossier iranien sont largement passés au second plan durant la campagne électorale de 2020, le candidat démocrate privilégie la question de la paix (crainte de l’opinion publique américaine d’une nouvelle guerre) à celle de la défense des valeurs démocratiques dans sa présentation de la politique iranienne.

Ce nouvel équilibre date des années 2000. En effet, à partir des guerres d’Afghanistan (2001) et d’Irak (2003), en dépit de l’impopularité du régime iranien auprès de l’opinion publique américaine, il apparaît que la thématique de la paix l’emporte sur celle de la détestation du régime théocratique. C’est dans ce contexte que ce régime va pouvoir développer ses réseaux d’influence sur le territoire américain.

Enfin, les relations irano-américaines sont un cas d’étude pertinent pour évaluer l’efficacité de l’outil des sanctions économiques pour atteindre des objectifs politiques. On observe que, depuis les années 2000, la réduction des relations commerciales entre l’Iran et les pays occidentaux entraîne une redistribution du commerce extérieur de la République islamique au profit des pays asiatiques (Chine, Russie, Inde). Plus généralement, l’exemple américain montre la nécessité de développer les contacts avec la population iranienne, dans les secteurs économiques, culturels et des nouvelles technologies notamment, afin de contrer la politique d’isolement de la République islamique. Celle-ci vise à couper la population iranienne du reste du monde en ayant recours à la stratégie de l’ennemi extérieur.

Cet extrait est issu de « Téhéran-Washington 1979-2025 : le grand Satan à l’épreuve de la révolution islamique » de Clément Therme, qui vient de paraître aux éditions Hémisphères, Maisonneuve et Larose.

Il faut donc éviter de nourrir cette stratégie par une rhétorique martiale qui ne fait qu’exacerber le complexe obsidional de la République islamique qui tire avantage de la confrontation avec l’extérieur pour mieux réprimer à l’intérieur. L’enfermement de la jeunesse est l’une des clés du maintien du régime aux affaires (avec la rente pétrolière), si les pays occidentaux parvenaient à le contourner, l’avenir de l’Iran ne pourrait qu’en être meilleur.

[…] Avec le retour de l’administration Trump et la tentation de s’aligner sur Israël lors de la guerre des Douze Jours en juin 2025, les contradictions inhérentes à l’approche républicaine des questions iraniennes apparaissent plus nettement. En adoptant une lecture largement façonnée par les perspectives régionales, et en particulier israéliennes, la stratégie de « paix imposée par la force » défendue par la seconde administration Trump comporte le risque majeur d’entraîner le Moyen-Orient dans une spirale de chaos.

The Conversation

Clément Therme ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

ref. Comprendre les biais de perception de l’Iran par les États-Unis depuis 1979 – https://theconversation.com/comprendre-les-biais-de-perception-de-liran-par-les-etats-unis-depuis-1979-264375

Des roses en hiver : aux racines d’un modèle industriel

Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Pierre-Louis Poyau, Doctorant en Histoire, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

Vue par aéroplane des serres de la roseraie R. Adnet, au Cap d’Antibes, dans les Alpes-Maritimes (1913). Archives départementales des Alpes-Maritimes

C’est un modèle de plus en plus contesté : celui du commerce industriel et mondialisé des fleurs. Polluant, potentiellement dangereux pour la santé des fleuristes et des agriculteurs, cette réalité ne date pourtant pas d’hier. Pouvoir produire en quantité des fleurs toute l’année est un héritage du XIXᵉ siècle. Retour sur cette époque où la fleur est devenue un bien de consommation comme un autre.

Entre les chrysanthèmes de la Toussaint et les roses rouges de la Saint-Valentin, en fin d’année dernière, le visage d’Emmy Marivain a surgi dans l’actualité. Avec lui a émergé le sujet de l’impact sur la santé des pesticides utilisés par la floriculture. Cette fille de fleuriste, décédée prématurément d’un cancer à l’âge de 11 ans, a de fait contribué à la prise de conscience des ravages potentiels de l’industrie des fleurs coupées.

Massivement importées d’Afrique et d’Amérique du Sud, sont en effet exposées à des quantités considérables de pesticides ; près de 700 produits différents si l’on en croit le récent livre blanc publié par l’Union nationale des fleuristes.

Mais comment en est-on arrivé là, à des fleurs produites en toutes saisons en quantité considérable à l’aide d’intrants chimiques, transportées sur des distances de plus en plus longues, et à des contrôles par là même complexifiés ? Tout ce qui façonne aujourd’hui l’industrie et le modèle de production des fleurs que nous achetons prend en fait ses racines dans l’Europe du XIXe siècle. Marginal dans la première moitié du siècle, le commerce de la fleur coupée prend un essor important dans les années 1860, porté par l’intensification de la production, par le développement de la culture sous serres chauffées et par l’usage croissant d’engrais, d’insecticides et d’anticryptogamiques (produits destinés à la lutte contre les champignons).

À l’aube du XXe siècle, ce sont ainsi des centaines de millions de fleurs qui sont produites chaque année en France et expédiées dans toute l’Europe. La floriculture est en voie d’industrialisation.

« Protester contre l’hiver » : l’essor de la culture à contre-saison

Le forçage, qui consiste à accélérer la floraison en exposant une fleur à la chaleur, est pratiqué dès la première moitié du XIXe siècle par les horticulteurs. Le procédé est relativement simple : les plantes sont placées sous une serre chauffée grâce à des tuyaux remplis d’air ou d’eau et reliés à une chaudière. Les années 1850-1870 voient se multiplier les expérimentations destinées à améliorer ce dispositif qui est rapidement généralisé.

Au mitan des années 1900, la région parisienne compte près de 3 000 serres consommant environ 350 tonnes de charbon par an pour la production floricole. Il s’agit bien, pour les horticulteurs, de s’affranchir des contraintes naturelles en proposant des fleurs toute l’année à des consommateurs de plus en plus nombreux. Comme l’écrit l’historien et romancier Victor du Bled en 1901,

« le forçage des fleurs est une des innombrables applications de cette loi universelle qui met l’homme aux prises avec la nature ; il proteste contre l’hiver, il brouille les Parisiens avec les saisons, il leur fournit des roses pendant toute l’année ».

Cet essor du forçage s’accompagne, notamment dans le Midi (principalement sur le littoral méditerranéen), d’une culture particulièrement intensive. Les horticulteurs n’y pratiquent pas la jachère, qui consiste à laisser la terre sans travailler et se reposer temporairement. Si l’intensification de la production concerne de nombreux pans de l’agriculture, cette dynamique est particulièrement forte dans le cas de la floriculture. En effet, la petite taille des exploitations floricoles et la forte valeur ajoutée des fleurs produites incitent les floriculteurs à chercher les rendements les plus élevés possibles. Certaines terres floricoles produisent ainsi chaque année entre six et dix récoltes.

La culture intensive contribue à l’épuisement des sols et à l’affaiblissement des végétaux quand l’humidité et la chaleur qui règnent dans les serres favorisent la prolifération des parasites. Pour parer à ces problèmes, les horticulteurs sont de plus en plus nombreux, dans les dernières décennies du XIXe siècle, à défendre le déploiement des engrais, insecticides et anticryptogamiques.

La chimie agricole au service de l’essor de la floriculture

Comme les historiens l’ont largement mis en lumière, les dernières années du XIXe siècle voient l’agriculture faire un usage croissant des nouveaux engrais et des insecticides chimiques. Les horticulteurs ne se tiennent pas à l’écart de ce mouvement et les premières années du XXe siècle sont un temps d’intenses expérimentations en matière d’application à la floriculture des nouveaux produits issus de la chimie agricole. Les engrais azotés, sulfate d’ammoniac et nitrate de soude notamment, commencent à être utilisés, mais ne seront massivement employés qu’après la Première Guerre mondiale.

Pour lutter contre les pucerons et les araignées rouges qui s’en prennent aux cultures, les horticulteurs se servent de plus en plus du sulfure de carbone, du lysol, de l’acide sulfurique et du cyanure de potassium, tout en minimisant les risques de ces produits. Certes, ce sont « des poisons extrêmement redoutables », admet l’horticulteur Oscar Labroy en 1904. Néanmoins, « avec de la prudence, aucun danger n’est à craindre ».

Certains acteurs se spécialisent dans la chimie horticole. C’est le cas de la compagnie Truffaut, installée à Versailles en 1897. Elle produit en série un engrais, la biogine, dont la supériorité sur le fumier est régulièrement vantée dans ses brochures publicitaires. L’insecticide Truffaut, quant à lui, est censé remplacer avantageusement les anciennes méthodes à base de jus de tabac. En 1913, ce sont 4 000 tonnes d’engrais, d’insecticides et d’anticryptogamiques qui sont expédiées à des horticulteurs de tout le pays depuis les installations versaillaises de l’entreprise.

Des fleurs françaises pour l’Europe

La pratique du forçage, de la culture intensive et l’usage croissant de produits issus de la chimie agricole conduisent à une augmentation rapide des rendements. Alliée à l’essor du chemin de fer, cette augmentation de la productivité permet aux floriculteurs français d’expédier leurs fleurs à des distances de plus en plus grandes. Alors qu’il fallait huit jours pour relier Nice à Paris au début du XIXe siècle, il ne faut plus que vingt-et-une heures en 1892 et treize heures en 1910. Grâce aux trains rapides de la Compagnie des chemins de fer de Paris à Lyon et à la Méditerranée (PLM), les fleurs cultivées dans les exploitations du littoral méditerranéen rejoignent Paris puis l’Europe tout entière au début du XXe siècle.

Chargement du train aux fleurs de la compagnie PLM (s.d., fin XIXᵉ siècle).
Archives départementales des Alpes-Maritimes

Le Midi, qui s’impose au début du siècle comme la plus grande zone de production floricole du continent, commence à exporter ses fleurs en dehors du territoire national dans des quantités de plus en plus importantes. En 1911, ce sont 7 200 tonnes d’œillets, de roses ou encore de violettes de Parme qui sont expédiées des gares du littoral vers l’Angleterre, l’Allemagne, la Belgique, la Russie et le Danemark. Si le gros des exportations est le fait des exploitants méridionaux, les horticulteurs du département de la Seine expédient également leur production vers la Russie, la Suède et la Pologne.

Cueillette de fleurs pour l’exportation près de Bandol, dans le Var (s.d., début XXᵉ siècle).
Archives départementales du Var.

Un siècle plus tard, les fondamentaux restent les mêmes, mais le changement d’échelle est considérable. C’est à partir des années 1970, avec l’installation des premières grandes exploitations floricoles en Afrique, au Kenya notamment, que le commerce des fleurs commence à prendre l’ampleur qu’on lui connaît aujourd’hui.

Les exportations de fleurs, cultivées à l’aide d’un usage massif de produits phytosanitaires et transportées par avion vers l’Europe, connaissent une croissance rapide à la fin du XXe siècle. Entre 1998 et 2003, les expéditions kenyanes passent ainsi de 30 000 à 60 000 tonnes par an. Depuis une dizaine d’années néanmoins, les initiatives se multiplient qui visent à la relocalisation d’une production sans pesticides et plus respectueuse des cycles naturels. Consommer des fleurs en quantité plus modeste et se passer de roses en hiver, voilà qui impose peut-être de se défaire d’un modèle vieux d’un siècle et demi.

The Conversation

Pierre-Louis Poyau ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

ref. Des roses en hiver : aux racines d’un modèle industriel – https://theconversation.com/des-roses-en-hiver-aux-racines-dun-modele-industriel-265543

‘Your countries are going to hell’: Trump’s UN speech explained by an expert

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Curran, Research Fellow: Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding, Coventry University

The assembled United Nations dignitaries gave Donald Trump 13 seconds of applause as he approached the podium for his address to the 80th anniversary general debate on September 23. They clapped for 20 seconds when he finished speaking.

In between, having been asked to confine his remarks to 15 minutes (like all other speakers), the US president gave the room a lengthy address that lasted 57 minutes. It veered from the many shortcomings of the previous US administrations, to why UN migration policies were ruining the world, to the climate change “con job”, to a warning to the assembled leaders that “your countries are going to hell”.

At points in between, Trump congratulated himself, for turning the US into the “hottest country anywhere in the world”, for repelling a “colossal invasion” of migrants at America’s southern border and for ending seven wars – for which he repeated his line that he should have been given the Nobel peace prize.

He also savaged the UN, which he said “did not even try to help in any” of the conflicts. “The UN is such tremendous potential. I’ve always said it. It has such tremendous, tremendous potential, but it’s not even coming close to living up to that potential. For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up.” He added: “Empty words don’t solve war.”

Questioning whether the UN could play a productive role, Trump offered “the hand of American leadership and friendship to any nation in this assembly that is willing to join us in forging a safer, more prosperous world”. In other words, UN-led multilateralism is out, to be replaced, perhaps, by a series of bilateral relationships dominated by the US.

Eight decades after its founding in the wake of the second world war, it is not a good time for the UN. It is currently mired in a budget crisis: US$2.4 billion (£1.77 billion) in unpaid dues from member states against an overall budget of US$3.5 billion for 2025. Of this, the US owes the most, about US$1.5 billion.

The Trump administration is applying a much-reduced budget that includes zero funding for UN peacekeeping operations. This decision has been made despite the fact that the US has an obligation to pay at least one-quarter of the UN’s peacekeeping costs. It has also paused most other funding to the body.

Trump’s speech to the United Nations in full.

Trump’s speech did not shy away from other issues of critical importance. He highlighted the need to “stop the war” in Gaza and negotiate peace. He also chastised Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. But his views on these conflicts were largely aimed at individual states as opposed to the UN – and multilateralism – in general.

When it came to Gaza, he was critical of the states that “unilaterally” recognised Palestinian statehood. Talking about Ukraine, Trump criticised European states for not cutting off purchases of Russian energy and energy products. The UN, and its efforts in addressing these catastrophic situations, was not mentioned.

Migration and climate

But Trump was most savage when it came to migration. He opened his section on migration by stating that “your countries are being ruined”, stating: “The United Nations is funding an assault on western countries and their borders.” Claiming that the UN provides cash assistance towards migrants journeying to the US, Trump then stated: “The UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them.”

The rest of his discussion on migration was aimed at Europe. Within that he offered unsubstantiated claims about London – with whose mayor, Sadiq Khan, he has a longstanding disagreement: “Now they want to go to sharia law” he said.

His language here will (rightly) cause considerable concern for many. It may reflect his belief in the role of sovereign borders, particularly in the US. But the attachment – in particular with regards to European states – of the idea of sovereignty to a way of life that is somehow endangered by migration is one which could embolden anti-migrant sentiment on a global level.

Trump’s views on climate change will also grab headlines. Interestingly though, given his other criticisms of the UN, while he called climate science and the idea of man-made global warming “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”, his scorn wasn’t particularly aimed at the UN.

Granted, the UN has been in the driving seat for many of the steps taken in attempting to tackle the climate crisis – so by implication, the UN was in the US president’s sights. But he instead he took the opportunity to direct his slurs towards China which – he said – builds wind turbines “and they send them all over the world but they barely use them”.

So what can be taken from this? It may not have been a worst-case scenario for those who support international cooperation. He didn’t explicitly pull the US out of any other UN programmes.

But there’s very little to take reassurance from a multilateral perspective when viewing Trump’s 57 minutes at the lectern. In his view, the UN is not up to speed with attempts to build peace, it doesn’t function properly, it’s secondary to bilateral efforts, and – when it comes to the US – it has supported an “invasion” by migrants.

And, reading between the lines, Trump’s perspectives on sovereignty, climate change and migration may embolden other political leaders who want to push similar agendas. It has the danger of going beyond rhetoric.

The US president’s disdain for multilateralism and the UN system may mean other members reprioritise their budgets, cutting funding still further. This would further fracture a UN system which is already seriously under pressure.

The Conversation

David Curran received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and Irish Research Council in 2022/23 to hold a series of workshops to better understand UN policies towards the Protection of Civilians

ref. ‘Your countries are going to hell’: Trump’s UN speech explained by an expert – https://theconversation.com/your-countries-are-going-to-hell-trumps-un-speech-explained-by-an-expert-265944

What is leucovorin, the drug the Trump administration says can treat autism?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nial Wheate, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

The US government has announced controversial guidance on the prevention and treatment of autism in children.

New health recommendations aim to discourage pregnant women from taking the painkiller paracetamol – also known as acetaminophen and by the brand name Tylenol – to prevent autism.

The recommendations also include using the drug leucovorin to treat speech-related difficulties that children with autism sometimes experience.

So what is leucovorin and what does the science say about its ability to treat autism?

What is leucovorin?

Leucovorin is a form of folic acid, a B vitamin our bodies usually get from foods such as legumes, citrus fruits and fortified grains.

The medication is most often used in cancer treatment. It’s typically used alongside the chemotherapy drug fluorouracil, a cancer treatment that stops cancer cells from making DNA and dividing. Leucovorin enhances the effects of fluorouracil.

Leucovorin is also used to reduce the toxic side effects of methotrexate, another chemotherapy drug.

Methotrexate works by blocking the body’s use of folate, which healthy cells need to make DNA. Leucovorin provides an active form of folate that healthy cells can use to make DNA, thereby “rescuing” them while methotrexate continues to target cancer cells.

Because methotrexate is also used to treat the skin condition psoriasis, leucovorin can also be used as a rescue agent during treatment for this autoimmune condition.

Why is folate important?

Because folate is essential for making DNA and other genetic material, which cells need to grow and repair properly, it’s especially important during pregnancy.

This is because insufficient folate is linked to the development of spina bifida, a condition where a baby’s spine does not develop correctly. For this reason, women are advised to take folic acid supplements before conception and during the early months of pregnancy.

Folate is also important for supporting the production of red blood cells and overall brain function.

Why is it being considered to treat autism?

The recommendation to use leucovorin to treat autism seems to stem from a theory that low levels of folate in the brain can lead to a condition called cerebral folate deficiency.

Children with cerebral folate deficiency don’t usually display symptoms for the first two years. Then they show signs of speech difficulties, seizures and intellectual disability.

As the signs of autism are similar and it usually presents at around the same age, some people have proposed a link between cerebral folate deficiency and autism.

What does the evidence say?

So can giving children folate, in the form of leucovorin, help them to function better with autism? The evidence says maybe yes, and here’s what we know so far.

A review of the evidence in 2021 analysed the results of 21 studies that used leucovorin for autism or cerebral folate deficiency. Children who took the drug generally had improved autism symptoms. But the authors also said more studies were needed to confirm the findings.

Since then, a small 2024 study involved about 80 children aged two to ten years with autism. Half took a daily maximum dose of 50mg of folinic acid (similar to leucovorin), the other half took a placebo. Children given folinic acid showed more pronounced improvement when compared with those who took the placebo.

A similar 2025 study examined the same dose of folinic acid given to Chinese children with autism. Those given folinic acid had greater improvement in a type of social skill known as social reciprocity when compared with children given placebo.

While promising, none of these trials are at the level to change medical practice. We’d need further, larger studies before doctors can make a proper recommendation.

Like all drugs, leucovorin has side effects. The most serious or common are severe allergic reactions, seizures and fits, and nausea and vomiting.

In a nutshell

Overall, the latest health recommendations are not yet backed by sufficient evidence.

While the US Food and Drug Administration will now allow doctors to prescribe leucovorin to treat autism symptoms, the Australian government should not change its prescribing guidance.

Support for people with autism should continue to follow evidence-based best practice until the data from clinical trials of leucovorin is more robust.

The Conversation

Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and was previously a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. He is a member of the Haleon Australia Pty Ltd Pain Advisory Board. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design and testing.

Jasmine Lee 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. What is leucovorin, the drug the Trump administration says can treat autism? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-leucovorin-the-drug-the-trump-administration-says-can-treat-autism-265849

100 years before quantum mechanics, one scientist glimpsed a link between light and matter

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Robyn Arianrhod, Affiliate, School of Mathematics, Monash University

MirageC / Getty Images

The Irish mathematician and physicist William Rowan Hamilton, who was born 220 years ago last month, is famous for carving some mathematical graffiti into Dublin’s Broome Bridge in 1843.

But in his lifetime, Hamilton’s reputation rested on work done in the 1820s and early 1830s, when he was still in his twenties. He developed new mathematical tools for studying light rays (or “geometric optics”) and the motion of objects (“mechanics”).

Intriguingly, Hamilton developed his mechanics using an analogy between the path of a light ray and that of a material particle. This is not so surprising if light is a material particle, as Isaac Newton had believed, but what if it were a wave? What would it mean for the equations of waves and particles to be analogous in some way?

The answer would come a century later, when the pioneers of quantum mechanics realised Hamilton’s approach offered more than just an analogy: it was a glimpse of the true nature of the physical world.

The puzzle of light

To understand Hamilton’s place in this story, we need to go back a little further. For ordinary objects or particles, the basic laws (or equations) of motion had been published by Newton in 1687. Over the next 150 years, researchers such as Leonard Euler, Joseph-Louis Lagrange and then Hamilton made more flexible and sophisticated versions of Newton’s ideas.

“Hamiltonian mechanics” proved so useful that it wasn’t until 1925 – almost 100 years later – that anybody stopped to revisit how Hamilton had derived it.

His analogy with light paths worked regardless of light’s true nature, but at the time, there was good evidence that light was a wave. In 1801, British scientist Thomas Young had performed his famous double-slit experiment, in which two light beams produced an “interference” pattern like the overlapping ripples on a pond when two stones are dropped in. Six decades later, James Clerk Maxwell realised light behaved like a rippling wave in the electromagnetic field.

But then, in 1905, Albert Einstein showed some of light’s properties could only be explained if light could also behave as a stream of particle-like “photons” (as they were later dubbed). He linked this idea to a suggestion made by Max Planck in 1900, that atoms could only emit or absorb energy in discrete lumps.

Energy, frequency and mass

In his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, where light dislodges electrons from certain metals, Einstein used Planck’s formula for these energy lumps (or quanta): E = . E is the amount of energy, ν (the Greek letter nu) is the photon’s frequency, and h is a number called Planck’s constant.

But in another paper the same year, Einstein introduced a different formula for the energy of a particle: a version of the now-famous E = mc ². E is again the energy, m is the mass of the particle, and c is the speed of light.

So here were two ways of calculating energy: one, associated with light, depended on the light’s frequency (a quantity connected with oscillations or waves); the other, associated with material particles, depended on mass.

Photo of a young Albert Einstein.
In 1905, Albert Einstein published two ways of calculating the energy of a particle: one linked to the frequency of wave, the other to the mass of the particle itself.
Hulton Archive / Getty Images

Did this suggest a deeper connection between matter and light?

This thread was picked up in 1924 by Louis de Broglie, who proposed that matter, like light, could behave as both a wave and a particle. Subsequent experiments would prove him right, but it was already clear that quantum particles, such as electrons and protons, played by very different rules from everyday objects.

A new kind of mechanics was needed: a “quantum mechanics”.

The wave equation

The year 1925 ushered in not one but two new theories. First was “matrix mechanics”, initiated by Werner Heisenberg and developed by Max Born, Paul Dirac and others.

A few months later, Erwin Schrödinger began work on “wave mechanics”. Which brings us back to Hamilton.

Schrödinger was struck by Hamilton’s analogy between optics and mechanics. With a leap of imagination and much careful thought, he was able to combine de Broglie’s ideas and Hamilton’s equations for a material particle, to produce a “wave equation” for the particle.

An ordinary wave equation shows how a “wave function” varies through time and space. For sound waves, for example, the wave equation shows the displacement of air, due to changes in pressure, in different places over time.

But with Schrödinger’s wave function, it was not clear exactly what was waving. Indeed, whether it represents a physical wave or merely a mathematical convenience is still controversial.

Waves and particles

Nonetheless, the wave-particle duality is at the heart of quantum mechanics, which underpins so much of our modern technology – from computer chips to lasers and fibre-optic communication, from solar cells to MRI scanners, electron microscopes, the atomic clocks used in GPS, and much more.

Indeed, whatever it is that is waving, Schrödinger’s equation can be used to predict accurately the chance of observing a particle – such as an electron in an atom – at a given time and place.

That’s another strange thing about the quantum world: it is probabilistic, so you can’t pin these ever-oscillating electrons down to a definite location in advance, the way the equations of “classical” physics do for everyday particles such as cricket balls and communications satellites.

Schrödinger’s wave equation enabled the first correct analysis of the hydrogen atom, which only has a single electron. In particular, it explained why an atom’s electrons can only occupy specific (quantised) energy levels.

It was eventually shown that Schrödinger’s quantum waves and Heisenberg’s quantum matrices were equivalent in almost all situations. Heisenberg, too, had used Hamiltonian mechanics as a guide.

Today, quantum equations are still often written in terms of their total energy – a quantity called the “Hamiltonian”, based on Hamilton’s expression for the energy of a mechanical system.

Hamilton had hoped the mechanics he developed by analogy with light rays would prove widely applicable. But he surely never imagined how prescient his analogy would be in our understanding of the quantum world.

The Conversation

Robyn Arianrhod 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. 100 years before quantum mechanics, one scientist glimpsed a link between light and matter – https://theconversation.com/100-years-before-quantum-mechanics-one-scientist-glimpsed-a-link-between-light-and-matter-261551

Who are the worst fathers in literature? Our experts make the tough call

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Suzy Freeman-Greene, Books + Ideas Editor, The Conversation

Penguin Books, Goodreads, Harper Collins, Text Publishing

Literature has long portrayed messed-up families. As poet Philip Larkin famously wrote, “They fuck you up, your mum and dad. / They may not mean to, but they do.”

In honour of this rich vein of dysfunction, we asked experts to nominate the worst literary fathers and mothers. Today we delve into dads. Tomorrow, we turn to mothers.

Of course, complex characters – neither wholly good nor bad – are the best sort. Author Andrew O’Hagan has spoken eloquently about striving to humanise even his most unpleasant creations, to fully amplify a novel.

Still, some characters are awfully hard to like. My least favourite dad might be Shug Bain, a cruel, violent man who abandons his wife and kids in Douglas Stuart’s Booker Prize-winning novel. Shug is appalled by his son Shuggie’s feminine mannerisms. “Look how twisted you’ve made him,” he tells his wife.

Here are our experts’ picks.

James Mortmain, I Capture the Castle – Dodie Smith


Penguin Books

Perhaps the worst parent is not an obvious “monster”, but one you can all too easily imagine as your own. In Dodie Smith’s I Capture The Castle, James Mortmain, a once-successful writer in the grip of decade-long writer’s block, threatens his first wife with a cake knife and assaults a neighbour. His younger daughter, Cassandra, softens Mortmain’s awfulness with disarming humour. In court, she writes, everyone was being very funny, but “Father made the mistake of being funnier than the judge … he was sent to prison for three months.” The self-focused Mortmain condemns his family to penury in a crumbling castle, where he reads detective novels in the gatehouse and Cassandra captures their plight in her journal.

– Carol Lefevre


Heathcliff, Wuthering Heights – Emily Bronte


Penguin books

For me, Heathcliff even beats bad-dads King Lear and Agamemnon. Most readers won’t remember that Heathcliff is a dad at all, which is part of what makes him so bad. The sadistic, dysfunctional passion between Heathcliff and Catherine dominates Brontë’s novel, leaving young Linton, the kid Heathcliff has with another woman, Isabella, neglected, abused and dominated by his terrifying father.

Heathcliff doesn’t even meet his son until he’s 13, after Isabella dies. Linton is then forced to live in tormented isolation and tortured into marrying his first cousin, Cathy. All this so Heathcliff can take revenge on Cathy’s father Edgar, who married his beloved Catherine Earnshaw.

– Sophie Gee


Zeus, the Iliad


Penguin Books

Zeus wakes up in book 15 of the Iliad, having been lulled to sleep by Hera with sex and potions. Poor Zeus – with his sneaky wife, bickering, divine siblings and children, all trying to manipulate the war at Troy – and he is only trying to keep the Olympian show on the road. Seriously? Who started the family games? And, if he had canned the swan costume and not raped Leda (or the dozens of other nymphs he “manifested himself” to), no Helen, no war, no problems.

He really is the paterfamilias of toxic patriarchy.

– Robert Phiddian


Reunion – John Cheever

The last time you see your father, I hope he is not drunk on Beefeater Gibsons. I hope he doesn’t clap at the wait staff or demand they speak languages they do not know. I hope he doesn’t get you removed from four restaurants in a single afternoon. Walking away as he curses at a newsstand clerk, I hope you don’t mourn his flaws as “your future and your doom”. But, were this all to occur, I hope it’s happening inside a John Cheever story, where the comic and tragic mix like flesh and blood, or gin and vermouth.

– Alex Cothren


Kev, Last Ride – Denise Young


Harper Collins

I’m not in favour of binaries of any kind, so I’m not comfortable with “best” vs “worst”. Rather, I contribute a father figure from Australian literature who may be both/and best/worst. I’m thinking of Kev, the father in Denise Young’s astonishingly moving novel, Last Ride, who takes his ten-year old son, Chook, with him on the run from the law across outback NSW after committing a brutal murder. Kev is among the worst, because: who would drag a kid into that? But Kev is simultaneously among the best, because his love for Chook, and his deep-seated impulse to protect him from another man’s abuse, is as genuine and moving as the paternal instinct gets. Kev wields fatherhood as double-edged sword. I feel for him.

– Julienne van Loon


Albion Gidley Singer, Dark Places – Kate Grenville


Text Publishing

The worst father in literature is an easy one for me, though it has been decades since I have read his story. I first encountered the incestuous father Albion Gidley Singer in Kate Grenville’s novel Lilian’s Story, in which he is a somewhat shadowy but menacing figure. But it’s in Dark Places that Albion’s evil is brought fully to bear. I can’t remember the details of the book, but I can remember all too well the feeling of suffocation that came from being too close to Albion, to his thoughts and his feelings. A tremendous book I never want to read again.

– Natalie Kon-yu


Sam Pollit, The Man Who Loved Children – Christina Stead


Goodreads

In Christina Stead’s exhilarating and suffocating semi-autobiographical The Man Who Loved Children, the naturalist and patriarch Sam Pollit is nicknamed by his wife Henny “the Great Mouthpiece” for his endless maxims and sickening Pollit-“fambly” patois. He claims to love his many children but mocks, cajoles, and insults them; even has them spy on each other. Family life is so bad that the novel’s heroine, the adolescent Louisa, believes her only hope of escape from the squalor and tyranny is through murder.

– Jane Messer


My pick is a towering figure in Australian fiction: Sam Pollit of Christina Stead’s 1940 masterpiece The Man Who Loved Children. Sam’s oppressive sunniness, his maniacal refusal to look reality in the face, and his demand that his family play along with his ego-fantasy force them to absorb cruelty, mockery and contempt, all the while descending into more and more perilous poverty at his hands. He is a modern day narcissist par excellence, but also a grotesquerie or travesty of optimism as a virtue in the world. In Sam, “positivity” is transformed into dangerous and delusional thinking that steamrolls everything before it and leaves destruction in its wake.

– Edwina Preston


Allie Fox, The Mosquito Coast – Paul Theroux

Charismatic, brilliant and narcissistic, Allie Fox drags his family off to live in an isolated part of Honduras’ Mosquito Coast to escape what he has persuaded himself is the impending end of the world. Like any colonist, he takes over a village and attempts to introduce Western technology and ideas. It all ends in catastrophe of course, and his wife and children barely escape with their lives. Allie is the exemplar of the charming destroyer and is at the top of my “bad dad” list.

– Jen Webb


Captain Ahab, Moby-Dick – Herman Melville


Penguin Books

Herman Melville, a great American author, was a lamentable father and an erratic provider for his family, who drove his son Malcolm to shoot himself in his bedroom in his parents’ house in 1867 after a row about the 18-year-old’s late hours. Melville’s fictional character Captain Ahab in Moby-Dick behaves even more reprehensibly, abandoning his own wife and son to focus obsessively on a doomed quest for a white whale that ultimately leads his whole crew to destruction. Ahab takes his name from the worst king of Israel in the Old Testament, and the author of this epic novel trains his gaze not just on one bad father, but the whole nature of patriarchy.

– Paul Giles


Victor Frankenstein, Frankenstein – Mary Shelley


Penguin books

The worst father in fiction has to be one of the first fathers in the horror genre, the eponymous figure in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818). Victor, of course, does not beget the monstrous creature via the conventional method of procreating with a female, and he fashions his infamous progeny out of corpses, but he is very much a horrible dad when he denies his ghastly son his love. The Swiss medical genius is the true Gothic monster here, not the hapless and unsightly creature who just wants to be loved.

– Ali Alizadeh


My dear Victor,

I should address you Father, but how can I? I do not have your own creator’s Miltonic power to throw moral injunction at you, as Satan did to God: “Did I request thee … from darkness to promote me?” Was there ever a son whose “being” (your own word) is not named but de-named as monster, dreaded spectre, fiend, vile insect, abhorred devil? I have entered literature as a hideous progeny, as an abortion and an anomaly. You never gave me love but do not forget, Father, that my form is “a filthy type of yours, more horrid from its very resemblance”.

Your son.

– Vijay Mishra


The novel’s horror is set in motion not just by Victor’s transgressive hubris as a scientist, but also by his refusal to accept responsibility. Victor abandons his “monster” at almost the moment after its birth, and repeatedly rejects its appeals for compassion and empathy. Victor’s attempts to disavow his legacy are ultimately futile, as his creation relentlessly pursues his “father” to the end of his days.

– Julian Novitz


Thomas Sutpen, William Faulkner – Absalom, Absalom!


Goodreads

“They feared him and they hated him because of his ruthlessness.” Thomas Sutpen is truly one of William Faulkner’s most terrifying creations: a man who arrives in Mississippi with nothing and wills a dynasty into being. Everything – his marriage, his children, his land – is subsumed by his amoral “design,” which he pursues at any cost and with no concern for those who get in his way.

When a hidden fact about his first marriage comes to light, he casts aside his wife and child, setting in motion a cycle of vengeance that consumes the Sutpen line. In Faulkner’s hands, this ghastly patriarch ultimately becomes a figure for the antebellum South itself – built on inhumanity, colonialism and slavery, unwilling to reckon with the horrors of the reality it has brought into being.

– Alexander Howard

Do you have a nomination for the worst father – or mother – in literature? If so, let us know by scrolling to the end of this article and adding your choice in the comments.

The Conversation

ref. Who are the worst fathers in literature? Our experts make the tough call – https://theconversation.com/who-are-the-worst-fathers-in-literature-our-experts-make-the-tough-call-263815

Lawsuits, cancellations and bullying: Trump is systematically destroying press freedom

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

Roberto Schmidt/Getty

United States President Donald Trump is well advanced in his systematic campaign to undermine the American media and eviscerate its function of holding him and others in power to account.

Since the late 18th century this function has often been called the fourth estate. It’s the idea the media is a watchdog over the other three estates which, in modern democracies, are parliament, the executive government and the judiciary.

In the US, Trump has had considerable success in weakening the other three.

His Republican Party controls both Houses of Congress, and they have shown no sign of wishing to restrain him.

He has stacked the executive government with cronies and ideological fellow travellers, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr (and his anti-vaccination agenda) as secretary of health, a brief stint by Elon Musk as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, and former Fox News host Pete Hegseth as defence secretary.

He has secured the support of the Republican Party to stack the Supreme Court with politically aligned judges who have routinely struck down lower court decisions against Trump, most notably in the matter of deporting migrants to countries other than their homelands.

Pulling funding, applying pressure

The fourth estate’s turn started in March, when Trump stripped federal funding from Voice of America, a public broadcasting service with a global reach, because it was “anti-Trump” and “radical”.

These cuts also hit two other projections of American soft power, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia.

In July, he cut funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) in a move that ended all federal support for National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting service and their member stations.

Now he has turned to the private sector media. He does not have the power to cut their funding, so he is taking a different approach: financial shake-downs and threats to the foundations of their business.

In October 2024, even before he was elected, Trump sued the Paramount company for US$10 billion (about A$15 billion). He alleged an interview with Kamala Harris during the 2024 election campaign had been “deceptively edited” by the CBS television network, a Paramount subsidiary.

In February 2025, after he had been sworn in as president, Trump upped the ante to US$20 billion (A$30 billion).

The case was considered by lawyers to have no legal merit, but at that time, Paramount was anxious to merge with Skydance Media, and this was subject to regulatory approval from the Trump administration.

So Paramount was vulnerable to, how shall we say? Blackmail? Extortion? Subornation?

A busy, dangerous July

On July 2, Paramount settled with Trump for US$16 million (A$24 million), which ostensibly is to go towards funding his presidential library.

On July 17 Paramount’s CBS network announced its longtime Late Show would be cancelled from May 2026 after its presenter Stephen Colbert, an outspoken critic of Trump, condemned the corporate cave-in. The Trump administration approved the merger shortly after.

Subsequently the House of Representatives Judiciary and Energy and Commerce committees announced an investigation into whether the $16 million settlement constituted a bribe.

Also in July, Trump sued Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal for defamation arising from an article linking Trump to the sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. He claimed the now-familiar amount of US$10 billion (A$15 billion) in damages.

Legal experts in the US say Trump has next to no chance of winning. In the US, public figures who sue for defamation have to prove that the publisher was motivated by malice, which means they published either knowing the material to be untrue, or not caring whether it was true or not.

This case is never likely to end up in court, nor is it likely that Trump will see a red cent of Murdoch’s money. The two men need each other too much. To borrow a phrase from the Cold War, they are in a MAD relationship: Mutually Assured Destruction.

Coming to heel, one by one

Rupert Murdoch was a guest at Windsor Castle at the recent banquet given for Trump by King Charles.

Considering Murdoch’s bitter history with the Royal Family, it is difficult to imagine Buckingham Palace inviting him without Trump’s urging. It may have been a sign of rapprochement between the two men.

Meanwhile Trump has set his sights on The New York Times, suing it for defamation and claiming US$15 billion (A$27 billion).

Referring to the Times’ endorsement of Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, he said it had become a “mouthpiece for the Radical Left Democrat Party”.

This case faces the same difficulties as his suit against the Wall Street Journal. The question is whether the Times will stand its ground or whether, like Paramount, it caves.

Among the big three US newspapers, the Times is the only one so far not to have been intimidated by Trump. The other two, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, refused to endorse a candidate at the election on instructions from their owners, Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong respectively, both of whose wider business interests are vulnerable to Trumpian retribution.




Read more:
Two of the US’s biggest newspapers have refused to endorse a presidential candidate. This is how democracy dies


The Post’s decision was condemned as “spineless” by its celebrated former editor Marty Baron.

Now Disney is in the firing line. It owns another of the big four US television networks, ABC. On September 17, it pulled its late-night talk show Jimmy Kimmel Live.

Kimmel had responded to White House accusations that leftists were responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk, saying:

we hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.

In what had all the hallmarks of a preemptive buckle, ABC and two of its affiliate networks took Kimmel off air indefinitely after Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission, said his agency might “take action” against the network because of Kimmel’s comments.

Kimmel is returning to TV, but the damage is already done.




Read more:
Jimmy Kimmel’s cancellation is the latest sign we’re witnessing the end of US democracy


Over at cable network MSNBC, its senior political analyst Matthew Dowd was fired after he had uttered on air the blindingly obvious statement that Kirk’s own radical rhetoric may have contributed to the shooting that killed him.

This cable network is no longer part of the main NBC network, so it can’t be said that NBC itself has yet come to heel.

Within 24 hours of Brendan Carr’s veiled threat, Trump stripped the veil away and made the threat explicit. Trump said of the national networks:

All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed, they’re not allowed to do that. They’re an arm of the Democrat party. I would think maybe their licence should be taken away.

Whether cancelling a licence would breach the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, is a question that might ultimately come before the Supreme Court. Given the present ideological proclivities of that court, the outcome would be by no means certain.

So Trump now has two out of three national newspapers, and two out of the big four national television networks, on the run.

Only one national newspaper and two national networks to go, and one of those is Murdoch’s Fox News, Trump’s most reliable cheerleader.

The Conversation

Denis Muller 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. Lawsuits, cancellations and bullying: Trump is systematically destroying press freedom – https://theconversation.com/lawsuits-cancellations-and-bullying-trump-is-systematically-destroying-press-freedom-265848

What a newly discovered gas bridge between galaxies tells us about the cosmic cycle of matter

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Lister Staveley-Smith, Professor at the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR), The University of Western Australia

A composite image shows a diffuse ‘bridge’ of gas linking two dwarf galaxies. ICRAR, N. Deg, Legacy Surveys (D.Lang / Perimeter Institute)

Most of the ordinary matter in the universe is hydrogen. But surprisingly, less than 20% of this hydrogen sits inside galaxies. The rest lies in the vast spaces between them – the so-called intergalactic medium.

This cosmic reservoir is thought to fuel the birth of new stars, as gas slowly falls into galaxies over billions of years. Yet much of that material doesn’t stay put: supernova explosions and powerful outflows from supermassive black holes can fling gas back out into intergalactic space.

The push-and-pull between inflows and outflows is central to understanding how galaxies grow and change over cosmic time. Probing this balance is one of the aims of the WALLABY survey, carried out using the Australian SKA Pathfinder (ASKAP) telescope at Inyarrimanha Ilgari Bundara, CSIRO’s Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory in Western Australia.

A new discovery from WALLABY, published today in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, sheds new light on the cosmic cycle of matter into, through and out of galaxies.

What is WALLABY?

Despite its name, WALLABY isn’t about animals. It’s a somewhat contrived acronym – Widefield ASKAP L-band Legacy All-sky Blind surveY – for a large survey of neutral hydrogen (the atomic form of hydrogen) across nearly half the southern sky. The ASKAP telescope is sensitive enough to detect hydrogen in and around galaxies up to a billion light years away.

Radio telescope dishes beneath an intense starry sky
The ASKAP radio telescope can detect hydrogen up to a billion light years away.
ICRAR

Because it’s a “blind” survey, WALLABY doesn’t target known galaxies. Instead, it scans huge patches of sky – each night covering an area about 150 times the size of the full Moon.

A galactic bridge

We then use automated algorithms to search for signs of hydrogen in the resulting data. One such search revealed an unusual gas bridge linking two otherwise unremarkable galaxies on the outskirts of the Virgo cluster, in the constellation Virgo. The bridge, at least 160,000 light years long, likely formed through tidal interactions between two dwarf galaxies known as NGC 4532 and DDO 137.

An image of red blobs and one of stars and galaxies.
Left: Radio astronomy image of neutral hydrogen gas in and around the galaxies NGC 4532 / DDO 137. Right: An optical image of the galaxies.
ICRAR and D.Lang (Perimeter Institute)

These tides are the cosmic equivalent of Earth’s ocean tides, but on a vastly larger scale and made of hydrogen rather than water. Gas pulled from the galaxies now stretches between them, filling the surrounding intergalactic space.

Such bridges are hard to detect because they contain few stars. But we have a local example: the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, two dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way, are joined by a 70,000-light-year-long gas bridge.

An extraordinary tail

The newly discovered bridge also helps explain a long-standing puzzle: an enormous gas tail streaming away from the dwarf galaxies NGC 4532 and DDO 137, first detected more than 30 years ago with the Arecibo telescope. This tail is ten times longer than the bridge and is the largest ever observed from a galaxy system.

New observations suggest that while tidal forces created the bridge and the envelope of gas around the galaxies, the spectacular tail was produced by another process.

As the pair of galaxies plunges into the Virgo cluster, they encounter extremely hot, thin gas that fills the cluster. The galaxies’ motion through this medium produces ram pressure – much like the resistance felt when cycling into a strong headwind – which strips gas from them and sweeps it out behind.

Remarkably, the gas density required for this effect is only around ten atoms per cubic metre, a value consistent with new measurements from the eROSITA X-ray telescope. Thanks to the galaxies’ high infall speed – more than 800 kilometres per second – this sparse medium is enough to create the vast tail.

The bigger picture

These two galaxies are just a fraction of the 200,000 WALLABY expects to detect by the end of its survey. Each discovery adds to our picture of how gas flows in and out of galaxies, enriching the intergalactic medium and shaping galactic evolution.

Together, they will help astronomers untangle the so-called baryonic cycle – the continuous recycling of matter between galaxies and the space around them.

The Conversation

Lister Staveley-Smith receives research funding from ICRAR, the Western Australian government, and the University of Western Australia.

ref. What a newly discovered gas bridge between galaxies tells us about the cosmic cycle of matter – https://theconversation.com/what-a-newly-discovered-gas-bridge-between-galaxies-tells-us-about-the-cosmic-cycle-of-matter-265760

Facing a shutdown, budget negotiations are much harder because Congress has given Trump power to cut spending through ‘rescission’

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Charlie Hunt, Associate Professor of Political Science, Boise State University

Will Congress keep the government running? Phil Roeder/Getty Images

Congress faces a deadline of Oct. 1 to adopt a spending measure to keep the federal government open. Various reporters will be interviewing serious people saying serious things in the basement corridors of the U.S. Capitol. There will also be political posturing, misrepresentation and either braggadocio or evasion. Politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed congressional expert Charlie Hunt, a political scientist at Boise State University, about the now-perennial drama over spending in Congress and what’s very different about this year’s conflict.

In the past, how did Congress pass budgets so that government could keep operating?

Typically, you would get an actual passage of a full budget for a year. But in the last 20 or 30 years or so, since we’ve become a more polarized country with a polarized Congress, we have a lot of what are called continuing resolutions, or CRs.They’re stopgap measures – not the full budget – and don’t tend to make a lot of changes on a lot of the spending priorities that Congress has.

Continuing resolutions usually just extend current levels of spending for a short time so that the two parties can continue negotiating. But as negotiations over long-term budgets have tended to fail more and more, these CR’s are becoming more common, and Congress almost never passes a full budget on a yearly basis at this point.

A bunch of people in office clothes, crowded around something in a hallway.
You’ll be seeing a lot of this sort of scrum – reporters interviewing members of Congress – as spending gets wrangled over.
Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

What’s the role of the president here?

The president has the power to veto any piece of legislation, and that includes the federal budget. Essentially, what majorities in Congress need when they are going into a budget fight is either the president’s implicit sign-off on whatever they pass, or they need enough votes to override the president’s veto.

Congress and the presidency right now are both held by Republicans, they’re in pretty deep alignment, so that’s not as much of a concern this time. It’s really just what Trump wants that needs to be a part of this legislation, and if there’s something in it that he really doesn’t like, then Congress needs to go back to the drawing board and the Republicans need to find out a way to get that into the bill.

What is driving each party in these negotiations?

Two different things are at work here. One is that Congress, as I mentioned, is really polarized. The two parties are farther apart from each other than they used to be. So the average Democrat and the average Republican aren’t going to agree as much on policy priorities and funding priorities than they did, say, in the 1980s or 1970s or before that.

The other thing is that Congress in recent decades has been more closely divided than they have been in the recent past, say, the last century. In both chambers, House and Senate, it’s very rare for one party or the other to have some massive majority. You need a majority of 60 in the Senate to have a chance at passing most legislation, for example, and this big a majority hasn’t happened since 2009. That’s something President Obama enjoyed with the Democrats for just a short period of time.

Since then, there have been very closely divided chambers in Congress, and that means that you need, at least in the Senate, some bipartisanship in order to pass that 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster. That’s what’s really gumming up the works right now. Democrats don’t feel like they’re being included in negotiations, and so they’re not likely to agree to a Republican-only budget in the Senate.

A man in a suit and wearing glasses, surrounded by reporters with mobile phones used to record him.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, has been key to rallying House Republicans behind a stopgap funding bill to avert a shutdown.
Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

What is different about the 2025 budget fight than previous ones?

A lot of the dynamics are still the same. You still have partisan fighting. And you still have some divides within the two parties that I think are worth mentioning. One example: There was a Senate vote just the other day on one of these budget resolutions, and a couple of Republicans voted with the Democrats. So for some of these more deficit-hawk Republicans, that concern is still playing a role.

What’s new this time around is this element of rescissions. This is a tool that’s been available since the 1970s in which presidents ask Congress to rescind spending that they had allocated. This is what happened earlier this year with the rescissions on public broadcasting – NPR and PBS – that got a lot of attention, as well as on USAID. Trump said he wanted to cut funding for public broadcasting – the GOP in the Senate and House voted to let him. They didn’t need 60 votes in the Senate for a rescission, either. Just a majority for this move.

So in this case, Democrats are looking at this and thinking, “Why should we negotiate, if you’re just going to rescind that later on without our consent?” That’s a major element that’s changed. While it’s a power that has been in place for a while, Trump and the Republicans have been really willing to wield that.

Do you see this rescission power being exercised with every budget or continuing resolution that Congress passes?

This is a pretty serious breach of what we call Congress’ “power of the purse.” That spending power is set out in Article 1 of the Constitution. It is a key power, maybe their most important power and point of leverage they have in going back and forth with the president and making sure the executive branch doesn’t accrue too much power.




Read more:
Congress, not the president, decides on government spending − a constitutional law professor explains how the ‘power of the purse’ works


But if this rescission authority is going to be used in this way going forward, where basically any spending priority that the president doesn’t want or doesn’t want to fund is going to be subject to rescission, then Congress doesn’t really have the power of the purse, right? They have a president who is going to veto anything that doesn’t live up to their expectations, or they can just sign it and then ask for these rescissions later.

The key thing here is that President Trump currently has in Congress a set of Republicans in both the House and the Senate who are willing to do virtually anything he wants and are subject to a lot of the political pressures in their districts that put him in office in the first place. So if they don’t go along with rescissions, they’re going to face the wrath of their Republican voters in their district.

That’s one thing that’s really changed in the last 30 years that I think gives the president a lot more authority in these matters, and makes rescission such a powerful tool that did not exist before.

The Conversation

Charlie Hunt 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. Facing a shutdown, budget negotiations are much harder because Congress has given Trump power to cut spending through ‘rescission’ – https://theconversation.com/facing-a-shutdown-budget-negotiations-are-much-harder-because-congress-has-given-trump-power-to-cut-spending-through-rescission-265827

En République centrafricaine, tous les citoyens ne sont pas égaux dans l’isoloir

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Alexandra Lamarche, PhD Candidate | Doctorante, Université de Montréal

En République centrafricaine (RCA), voter devient un outil d’exclusion : les élections en décembre ne visent pas à refléter la volonté populaire, mais à effacer ceux que le régime ne reconnaît pas comme pleinement centrafricains, en particulier les musulmans.

Le 28 décembre, les citoyens de la RCA se rendront aux urnes pour la première élection depuis la réforme de la Constitution, qui a supprimé la limite du nombre de mandats présidentiels.

Avec 2,3 millions d’électeurs inscrits, dont près de 750 000 nouveaux, ce scrutin est présenté par les médias comme un signe d’engagement démocratique renouvelé. Mais derrière les chiffres se dessine une réalité bien plus inquiétante : une élection soigneusement façonnée pour consolider le pouvoir d’un régime nativiste, qui redéfinit la citoyenneté pour mieux exclure.

Sous le couvert d’une procédure démocratique, le gouvernement de Faustin-Archange Touadéra recourt à la répression pour créer un électorat composé uniquement de « vrais » Centrafricains, excluant ceux qu’il considère comme étrangers, en particulier les musulmans. Il en résulte une élection qui n’est ni libre ni représentative, mais plutôt un outil d’exclusion nativiste.

Le nativisme repose sur une distinction entre les « autochtones » supposés légitimes et les « étrangers » perçus comme une menace pour l’identité nationale. Ces conceptions donnent lieu à des hiérarchies d’appartenance, où certains groupes sont considérés comme des membres plus légitimes de la nation que d’autres.

Cette idéologie est bien connue au-delà du continent africain. Aux États-Unis, par exemple, ce réflexe nativiste se traduit non seulement par des politiques anti-immigration de Donald Trump, mais aussi par une hostilité croissante envers les migrants eux-mêmes, présentés comme une menace culturelle et économique. En Inde, sous la direction de Narendra Modi et de son parti nationaliste hindou, le BJP, un nativisme religieux s’est renforcé, redéfinissant l’identité nationale en termes hindous et marginalisant les minorités, notamment musulmanes.

Cet article utilise ces concepts pour démontrer qu’en RCA, le nativisme dépasse la simple construction de hiérarchies d’appartenance pour servir activement de moteur idéologique à la répression étatique. En tant que chercheuse en science politique à l’Université de Montréal, spécialisée sur la République centrafricaine, je m’appuie sur mon expérience récente de terrain auprès de musulmans centrafricains.

Qui est vraiment Centrafricain ? Quand le pouvoir redéfinit l’identité

Malgré les discours nativistes, les musulmans ne sont pas des nouveaux arrivants en RCA. Leur présence dans le pays remonte en effet à deux siècles. Alors que le pays est depuis longtemps polarisé sur le plan ethnique, plus récemment, les discours nativistes mobilisés par l’ancien président François Bozizé ont exacerbé les tensions entre la majorité chrétienne et la minorité musulmane du pays, jouant un rôle important dans le déclenchement de la guerre civile de 2013-2014.

Malgré la fin officielle du conflit, l’instabilité persiste. En continuant à présenter les musulmans comme des invités, souvent liés à leurs origines du Tchad ou du Soudan actuels, les discours nativistes du gouvernement du président Faustin-Archange Touadéra délégitiment la citoyenneté musulmane, tant dans les discours que dans la pratique, et justifient la répression violente et administrative menée par l’État.

Quand voter devient un privilège

Entre janvier et mars 2025, j’ai mené 42 entretiens de terrain avec des musulmans centrafricains au sujet de leurs expériences de répression en RCA. Bien que leurs vécus varient, ces entretiens ont permis de mieux comprendre les obstacles bureaucratiques et les problèmes de sécurité qui limitent et entravent la participation politique des musulmans, réduisant ainsi l’électorat en fonction de l’identité.

Cette exclusion repose sur trois mécanismes : un accès inégal aux cartes d’identité nécessaires pour s’inscrire, des obstacles à la participation le jour du vote, et l’exclusion des réfugiés, majoritairement musulmans.

Peu de musulmans centrafricains ont pu obtenir leur carte d’identité nationale facilement… quand ils y parviennent. Beaucoup se voient exiger des documents supplémentaires pour prouver leur citoyenneté : certificats de naissance, de résidence et de nationalité, souvent remontant jusqu’aux parents et grands-parents. Tous disent avoir payé plus que leurs compatriotes chrétiens pour les mêmes démarches.

Ces paiements sont parfois présentés comme des frais administratifs ; d’autres parlent ouvertement de pots-de-vin. Certains ont même été harcelés par les forces armées centrafricaines (FACA) et leurs alliés russes en tentant de régulariser leur situation. Une femme, venue obtenir les papiers de sa famille à Bangui, raconte avoir été menacée par les FACA et sommée de quitter le pays.

Pour ceux qui ont perdu leurs documents dans les déplacements liés aux conflits, obtenir une carte est quasiment impossible. Face à ces obstacles, beaucoup renoncent. D’autres, refusant de céder, s’accrochent malgré le harcèlement, les coûts et les humiliations, souvent sans succès.

À cela s’ajoute une pratique alarmante : la confiscation des papiers par les FACA. Un homme témoigne :

En 2023, ils m’ont arrêté, volé mes papiers, mon certificat de naissance, ma carte d’identité. Ils m’ont battu et dit que je n’étais pas digne d’avoir des documents centrafricains

Et même parmi ceux qui parviendront à voter, la peur domine. Lors des élections de 2020-2021, plusieurs musulmans disent avoir été forcés à voter pour Touadéra. Une femme se souvient :

Les FACA m’ont suivie jusqu’à l’isoloir et m’ont montré son nom sur le bulletin. Je savais que c’était illégal, mais j’avais trop peur pour dire non.

Les réfugiés centrafricains — qui ont fui pendant la guerre civile ou depuis — n’ont plus le droit de vote. Bien qu’ils aient participé aux premières élections d’après-guerre, le gouvernement les maintient à l’écart depuis, malgré les appels répétés des Nations unies pour leur inclusion.

« Nous sommes exclus à cause de la mentalité que les musulmans ne sont pas centrafricains », résume un homme interrogé.

Un vote qui divise

Ces obstacles et restrictions à l’exercice du droit de vote sont des indicateurs clairs d’une marginalisation systémique. Ils soulignent que lorsque des élections post-guerre civile ont lieu dans des régimes nativistes, elles ne sont pas des signes de progrès, mais des instruments permettant de légitimer l’exclusion et de consolider le pouvoir parmi ceux qui sont considérés comme de « vrais » citoyens.

L’exclusion des musulmans n’est pas une réponse aux troubles persistants dans le pays, mais une stratégie visant à restreindre l’accès à la vie politique et à redéfinir les contours de la citoyenneté. À l’approche des élections en RCA, cette dynamique illustre comment les régimes nativistes peuvent utiliser les élections pour décider à qui appartient — et qui est exclu — de la nation.

Ce cas ne s’inscrit pas seulement dans l’histoire de la République centrafricaine : il reflète une tendance mondiale où le populisme, le nationalisme et les politiques identitaires redéfinissent les frontières de l’appartenance. En RCA comme aux États-Unis, en Europe ou en Inde, les régimes nativistes peuvent transformer les élections en armes d’exclusion.

La Conversation Canada

Alexandra Lamarche est financée par le Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines (CRSH) du Canada

ref. En République centrafricaine, tous les citoyens ne sont pas égaux dans l’isoloir – https://theconversation.com/en-republique-centrafricaine-tous-les-citoyens-ne-sont-pas-egaux-dans-lisoloir-264538