Ce qu’avoir un chat fait à votre cerveau (et au sien)

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Laura Elin Pigott, Senior Lecturer in Neurosciences and Neurorehabilitation, Course Leader in the College of Health and Life Sciences, London South Bank University

L’ocytocine, surnommée l’” hormone de l’amour », envahit-elle les cerveaux du chat et de l’humain ? Zhenny-zhenny/Shutterstock

Caresser un chat, l’entendre ronronner n’a rien d’anodin : derrière ces instants se cache une réaction chimique qui renforce la confiance et diminue le stress, autant chez l’humain que chez l’animal.

Les chats ont beau avoir la réputation d’être indépendants, des recherches récentes suggèrent que nous partageons avec eux un lien unique, alimenté par la chimie du cerveau.

Au cœur du processus se trouve l’ocytocine, fréquemment désignée comme l’« hormone de l’amour ». Cette même substance neurochimique est libérée lorsqu’une mère berce son bébé ou lorsque des amis s’étreignent ; elle a un effet bénéfique sur la confiance et l’affection. Et aujourd’hui, des recherches indiquent qu’elle joue également un rôle important dans la relation entre les chats et les humains.

L’ocytocine est au cœur des liens sociaux, c’est-à-dire de la capacité d’entrer en contact avec les autres et de leur faire confiance, ainsi que de la régulation du stress, et ce tant chez les animaux que chez les humains. Une expérience menée en 2005 a montré qu’elle rendait des volontaires humains nettement plus enclins à faire confiance aux autres dans des opérations boursières fictives.

Cette hormone a aussi des effets apaisants, chez les humains comme chez les animaux : elle réduit le cortisol, l’hormone du stress, et active le système nerveux parasympathique — celui du repos et de la digestion — pour aider le corps à se détendre.

Les scientifiques savent depuis longtemps que les interactions amicales entre les chiens et leurs propriétaires déclenchent la libération d’ocytocine, créant une véritable boucle de rétroaction affective. Mais chez les chats, ce phénomène restait moins étudié.

Moins démonstratifs que les chiens, les chats expriment leur affection de façon plus subtile. Pourtant, leurs propriétaires décrivent souvent les mêmes bénéfices : chaleur, réconfort, baisse du stress. Les recherches confirment peu à peu ces témoignages. Ainsi des chercheurs japonais ont montré en 2021 que de brèves séances de caresses avec un chat augmentaient le taux d’ocytocine chez de nombreux propriétaires.

Dans le cadre de cette étude, des femmes passaient quelques minutes à interagir avec leur chat pendant que les scientifiques mesuraient leurs niveaux hormonaux. Résultat : le contact amical (caresser, parler doucement) entraînait une hausse d’ocytocine dans la salive.

Beaucoup trouvent apaisant de caresser un chat qui ronronne, et ce n’est pas qu’une question de douceur du pelage. Le simple fait de caresser un chat — ou même d’entendre son ronronnement — stimule la production de cette hormone dans le cerveau. Une étude de 2002 a montré que ce pic d’ocytocine, déclenché par le contact, contribue à réduire le cortisol, ce qui peut ensuite faire baisser la tension artérielle, et même la douleur.

Homme tenant un chat gris sur ses genoux
Se blottir contre un chat peut aider à réduire le cortisol, l’hormone du stress.
Vershinin89/Shutterstock

Quand l’ocytocine circule-t-elle entre les chats et les humains ?

Les chercheurs commencent à identifier les moments précis qui déclenchent cette hormone de l’attachement dans la relation humain-chat. Le contact physique doux semble être le facteur principal.

Une étude publiée en février 2025 montre que lorsque les propriétaires caressent, câlinent ou bercent leurs chats de manière détendue, leur taux d’ocytocine a tendance à augmenter, tout comme celui des félins, à condition cependant que l’interaction ne soit pas forcée.

Les chercheurs ont surveillé le taux d’ocytocine chez les chats pendant 15 minutes de jeu et de câlins à la maison avec leur propriétaire. Quand les chats étaient à l’initiative du contact, par exemple en s’asseyant sur les genoux ou en donnant des petits coups de tête, ils présentaient une hausse significative d’ocytocine. Plus ils passaient de temps auprès de leur humain, plus l’augmentation était marquée.

Qu’en est-il des félins moins câlins ? La même étude a noté des schémas différents chez les chats ayant des styles d’attachement plus anxieux ou distants. Les chats dits « évitants », qui gardent leurs distances, ne présentaient aucun changement significatif de leur taux d’ocytocine, tandis que les chats anxieux (toujours en quête de leur maître, mais vite submergé) avaient un taux d’ocytocine élevé dès le départ.

Chez ces derniers, comme chez les chats évitants, les câlins imposés faisaient baisser le niveau d’ocytocine. Autrement dit : quand l’interaction respecte le rythme du chat, le lien s’approfondit ; quand elle est forcée, l’hormone de l’attachement diminue.

Les humains pourraient en tirer une leçon : la clé pour créer un lien fort avec un chat est de comprendre son mode de communication.

Contrairement aux chiens, les chats ne s’appuient pas sur un contact visuel prolongé pour créer des liens. Ils utilisent des signaux plus subtils, comme le clignement lent des yeux — un « sourire félin » qui exprime sécurité et confiance.

Le ronronnement joue aussi un rôle central. Son grondement grave est associé non seulement à l’autoguérison chez le chat, mais aussi à des effets apaisants chez les humains. L’écouter peut réduire la fréquence cardiaque et la tension artérielle et l’ocytocine contribue à ces bienfaits.

Ainsi, la compagnie d’un chat — renforcée par toutes ces petites poussées d’ocytocine issues des interactions — peut agir comme un véritable bouclier contre le stress, l’anxiété et parfois même la dépression, offrant un réconfort proche dans certains cas de celui d’un soutien humain.

Les chats sont-ils moins affectueux que les chiens ?

Les études montrent en effet que l’ocytocine est généralement plus fortement libérée dans les interactions homme-chien. Dans une expérience célèbre menée en 2016, des scientifiques ont mesuré l’ocytocine chez des animaux de compagnie et leurs propriétaires avant et après dix minutes de jeu. Les chiens ont montré une augmentation moyenne de 57 % après avoir joué, contre environ 12 % chez les chats.

Chez l’humain aussi, l’ocytocine grimpe davantage quand les interactions sociales sont fortes. Des études montrent que le contact avec un être cher produit des réponses plus fortes en ocytocine que le contact avec des étrangers. Cela explique pourquoi l’accueil enthousiaste d’un chien peut ressembler à l’émotion ressentie face à un enfant ou un partenaire.

Les chiens, animaux de meute domestiqués pour vivre aux côtés des humains, sont quasiment programmés pour rechercher le contact visuel avec nous, nos caresses et notre approbation — autant de comportements qui stimulent l’ocytocine des deux côtés. Les chats, eux, descendent de chasseurs solitaires et n’ont pas développé les mêmes signaux sociaux démonstratifs. Ils libèrent donc de l’ocytocine plus rarement, souvent seulement quand ils se sentent en sécurité.

La confiance d’un chat ne s’acquiert pas automatiquement, elle se mérite. Mais une fois acquise, elle est renforcée par la même molécule qui unit parents, partenaires et amis humains.

Ainsi, la prochaine fois que votre chat clignera doucement des yeux depuis le canapé ou se pelotera en ronronnant sur vos genoux, souvenez-vous : il ne se passe pas seulement quelque chose de tendre. Dans vos deux cerveaux, l’ocytocine circule, renforçant la confiance et apaisant le stress. Les chats, à leur manière, ont trouvé comment activer en nous la chimie de l’amour.

The Conversation

Laura Elin Pigott 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. Ce qu’avoir un chat fait à votre cerveau (et au sien) – https://theconversation.com/ce-quavoir-un-chat-fait-a-votre-cerveau-et-au-sien-265594

How I tracked the biggest hidden sources of forever chemical pollution in our rivers – new study

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Patrick Byrne, Professor of Water Science, Liverpool John Moores University

Patrick Byrne samples the water in the Mersey catchment. Patrick Byrne, CC BY-NC-ND

The amount of toxic “forever chemicals” flowing into the River Mersey in north-west England has reached some of the highest levels recorded anywhere in the world.

My team’s research links much of this contamination to old landfills, waste facilities and past industrial activity. Even if these chemicals were banned tomorrow, they would continue polluting our rivers for decades, possibly centuries.

But there is a path forward. We’ve developed a new method
to track and prioritise the largest sources for clean-up, giving regulators a clearer picture of where to act first.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), more commonly known as “forever chemicals”, are a large family of human-made chemicals found in everyday products like food packaging, water-repellent clothes and fire-fighting foams. They are valued for their ability to resist very high temperatures and to repel water and oil, but these same properties make them extremely persistent.

Once released, some PFAS could take thousands of years to break down. They accumulate in the environment, build up – with different compounds accumulating at different rates – inside the bodies of wildlife and people, and have been associated with harms to health. The most studied types have been linked to cancers, hormone disruption and immune system problems.

Patrick Byrne has been measuring PFAS ‘loads’ in rivers over a period of time, not just the concentration at one moment.
CC BY-NC-ND

Last year, my research team discovered that the amount of two potentially cancer-causing PFAS chemicals washing off the land and into the Mersey was among the highest in the world. In our follow-on research, we travelled upstream to try and locate where these PFAS are coming from. But with hundreds of potential PFAS sources, how do we isolate the largest ones?

The secret is measuring something called the PFAS load – the total amount of PFAS flowing through the river at a given point, rather than just the concentration in the water.

Here’s why that matters: a small stream can have high concentrations but carry only a small total amount, while a large river with lower concentrations can be transporting far more PFAS overall. If we only look at concentration, we risk missing the really heavy polluters.

By measuring PFAS loads at multiple points along the Mersey system, we could see exactly where the largest increases occurred. That told us both the location and the scale of PFAS inputs.

We detected PFAS chemicals at 97% of our sample sites, even in supposedly pristine streams draining from the Peak District national park. But the big breakthroughs came when we matched the largest PFAS load increases to specific areas.

PFBS (a type of PFAS) was coming in huge amounts from land draining old landfills in the Glaze Brook watershed near Leigh, west of Manchester. PFOA, a globally banned and cancer-causing PFAS, appeared to originate from a waste management facility on the River Roch, north of Manchester. PFOS, another banned PFAS, was entering the River Bollin, with strong evidence pointing to historic firefighting foam use at Manchester Airport.

What’s most striking to me is that all these sources are rooted in the past – old landfills, waste sites or historic industrial use. These chemicals are no longer in production, but they are still escaping into the environment, decades later.

alt text
This unmanned survey vessel is packed with sensors that measure PFAS loads in large rivers.
credit, CC BY-NC-ND

This is where PFAS load measurements make a real difference. Instead of chasing the highest concentrations – which might lead to cleaning up small streams that contribute little overall – we can target the sites releasing the largest total amounts of PFAS into our rivers.

It’s a simple idea with major implications. In a world where environmental regulators face tight budgets and limited monitoring capacity, knowing exactly which sites are the biggest sources is vital.

The Mersey is just one example. Around the world, PFAS contamination follows a similar pattern: numerous potential sources scattered across the landscape, many of them historical. The chemicals’ extreme persistence means they will continue cycling through rivers, soils and wildlife for generations unless active steps are taken to remove or contain them.

Our latest study shows that measuring PFAS load can help solve one of the toughest challenges in managing chemical pollution: working out where to start. By identifying and prioritising the biggest sources, regulators have a realistic chance of reducing the flow of forever chemicals into our rivers – and perhaps one day, making that nickname a little less true.


Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


The Conversation

Patrick Byrne receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council.

ref. How I tracked the biggest hidden sources of forever chemical pollution in our rivers – new study – https://theconversation.com/how-i-tracked-the-biggest-hidden-sources-of-forever-chemical-pollution-in-our-rivers-new-study-261967

Pourquoi la situation politique rend les Français malheureux

Source: The Conversation – France in French (3) – By Mickaël Mangot, Docteur en économie, enseignant, spécialiste d’économie comportementale et d’économie du bonheur, ESSEC

Avec déjà cinq gouvernements depuis le début du second mandat d’Emmanuel Macron, la France est rattrapée par l’instabilité politique. Est-ce de nature à rendre les Français malheureux ? ou le bonheur est-il seulement une affaire privée, imperméable aux évolutions du monde en général, et aux tribulations de la vie démocratique en particulier ?


Si les sciences du bonheur s’intéressent avant tout aux ressorts individuels du bonheur – comme la santé, les revenus, les relations sociales ou les croyances religieuses –, elles regardent également, et de plus en plus, si l’environnement commun joue un rôle significatif. La situation politique et les institutions sont particulièrement scrutées. Et les résultats très instructifs.

Sensibilité à la politique

Premier enseignement : les citoyens ne sont pas insensibles à l’actualité politique.

Son exposition par les médias est documentée comme ayant, en général, un effet négatif sur la balance émotionnelle, en augmentant la proportion d’émotions négatives ressenties durant une journée. Le « spectacle démocratique » n’est apparemment pas le meilleur des divertissements.

Le seul fait de penser à la vie politique dégrade l’évaluation que l’on fait de sa propre vie. L’institut de sondage Gallup a remarqué que lorsqu’il posait des questions sur la satisfaction de la vie politique, juste avant de poser la question sur la satisfaction de la vie (de l’individu), les sondés se disaient beaucoup moins satisfaits de leurs vies. L’effet est ressenti massivement : -0,67 sur une échelle de 0 à 10, soit l’équivalent de l’effet du chômage…

Au bruit de fond négatif s’ajoute l’effet des élections sur le moral des électeurs. Le verdict des urnes contribue positivement au bonheur des électeurs – précisément le bien-être émotionnel et la satisfaction de la vie – du camp vainqueur et inversement pour le camp défait. Cet effet est très similaire à ce qui est observé lors des compétitions sportives. Même les élections étrangères peuvent influencer le bonheur. L’élection de Donald Trump en novembre 2024 a entraîné une baisse significative du bonheur à travers l’Europe, selon une étude de la Stockholm School of Economics.

Implication politique

Deuxième enseignement : être impliqué politiquement n’est pas la voie royale vers le bonheur.

À la différence du bénévolat dans les associations (apolitiques), le militantisme politique n’augmente pas systématiquement le bonheur. Les études n’aboutissent pas à un effet consensuel : le militantisme peut aider au bonheur individuel, comme y nuire.

Les effets positifs apparaissent surtout quand l’action politique est porteuse de sens et permet d’affirmer l’identité de la personne. Les effets négatifs prédominent quand l’action est conflictuelle ou conduit à un isolement social.

Qualité des décisions publiques

Troisième enseignement : la qualité de la gouvernance politique est cruciale pour le bonheur individuel.

Les indices composites de qualité de la gouvernance qui agrègent les six dimensions répertoriées par la Banque mondiale – voix et responsabilité, stabilité politique et absence de violence/terrorisme, efficacité du gouvernement, qualité de la réglementation, État de droit et contrôle de la corruption – sont positivement corrélés aux niveaux de bonheur au plan national.

La qualité des décisions publiques semble l’emporter sur la qualité du processus démocratique. Précisément, c’est lorsque les décisions publiques ont atteint une qualité suffisante que le processus démocratique apporte un plus en permettant aux individus de s’exprimer et de ressentir une sensation de contrôle (collectif) sur les événements. Le bonus démocratique est plus significatif dans les pays riches que dans les pays en développement, en miroir d’aspirations à l’expression individuelle supérieures dans ces pays.

Bonus démocratique

Quatrième enseignement : les régimes autoritaires affichent en général un niveau de bonheur inférieur à celui des démocraties, mais l’effet dépend de la confiance dans le gouvernement. Quand la confiance – laquelle est liée, entre autres, à la qualité des politiques mises en place – est très élevée (ou très faible), on n’observe pas de différence notable entre les différents types de régimes. Le bonheur est alors élevé (ou faible), quel que soit le régime.

C’est seulement lorsque la confiance est intermédiaire que le bonus démocratique se fait sentir.

De même, le bonus démocratique disparaît lorsque les sentiments antidémocratiques ou illibéraux augmentent.

Ce qui est le cas actuellement en France. Le baromètre de la confiance politique du Cevipof a mis en évidence une montée de l’attrait pour un pouvoir plus autoritaire :

  • 48 % des Français estiment que « rien n’avance en démocratie, il faudrait moins de démocratie et plus d’efficacité » ;

  • 41 % approuvent l’idée d’un « homme fort qui n’a pas besoin des élections ou du Parlement », un score au plus haut depuis 2017 ;

  • 73 % souhaitent « un vrai chef en France pour remettre de l’ordre », contre 60 % en Allemagne et en Italie.




À lire aussi :
Mesurer le bonheur pour mieux penser l’avenir : l’initiative du Bonheur Réunionnais Brut


Bonheur des contre-pouvoirs

Rien n’indique que l’efficacité politique soit la norme parmi les régimes autoritaires. Si l’on prend l’exemple de la croissance économique, les travaux des Prix Nobel d’économie 2024 Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson et James Robinson montrent au contraire un avantage de croissance pour les démocraties. Au-delà d’une croissance moyenne supérieure, la variabilité de la croissance est également réduite chez les démocraties grâce à de meilleures institutions et à des contre-pouvoirs qui encadrent les décisions politiques.

Tous ces résultats montrent qu’il est difficile de s’affranchir du climat politique, aussi anxiogène et décevant soit-il. Ce que rappelait déjà le comte de Montalembert dans la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle :

« Vous avez beau ne pas vous occuper de politique, la politique s’occupe de vous tout de même. »

The Conversation

Mickaël Mangot 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. Pourquoi la situation politique rend les Français malheureux – https://theconversation.com/pourquoi-la-situation-politique-rend-les-francais-malheureux-261329

The Lady from the Sea: a fierce play that shies from the wonderful unknowability of Henrik Ibsen’s original

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dan Rebellato, Professor of Contemporary Theatre in the Department of Drama, Theatre and Dance Creative Writing and Practice-based Research, Royal Holloway University of London

Henrik Ibsen’s 19th-century play about a woman caught between a stormy past and respectable present has been reimagined for the 21st century in a new production at the Bridge Theatre, London.

This new adaptation arrives bristling with contemporary relevance. Writer and director Simon Stone has included references to Beyoncé and Just Stop Oil activism. It also features a millennial protagonist wrestling with climate anxiety.

Ellida is married to Edward, a doctor, who has two daughters, Asa and Hilda, from a first marriage that ended in their mother’s suicide. But Ellida has secrets, and they’re starting to come out. The first is a history of teenage climate activism. The second is an older man, Finn (Brendan Cowell), someone who was both guru and predator to her in her youth. When he returns, Ellida has a decision to make.

Simon Stone has a distinctive method when working on classics, transplanting the action to different places and times, and working with the actors to find contemporary equivalents to the original language, characters and story.

This play has been transplanted from Norway to England and from the 19th century to the 21st. This works well (even if the Yorkshire coast is hardly the Norwegian fjords). The family is, if anything, wealthier than in Ibsen’s original, though this gives them all a fragile sense of entitlement that makes the family’s disruption all the more potent.




Read more:
What’s next for Afghanistan? Two experts make predictions


The production is set in the round, with the stage in the middle of the audience. This choice places the vivid action under intense scrutiny, but it raises a problem: where is the sea?

The sea is an insistent presence in the play, a source of danger and seduction, luring Ellida back from her settled life. Lizzie Clachan’s design offers some elegant solutions – particularly the interval transformation from white to black, suggesting watery depths beneath shiny surfaces – but the format loses a sense of the ocean, when the ocean is nowhere to be seen. This Ellida feels less like a woman haunted by the sea’s mysteries than an advocate of wild swimming.

Alicia Vikander brings a touching vulnerability to Ellida, her awkwardness cutting through this family’s banter. I might have liked to see a less contained performance; we hear about her inner strength without quite seeing it, so we never feel the pull of the sea and the force of her decision.

Andrew Lincoln is a fine Edward – charming, intelligent, confident bordering on complacent, dangerously slow to recognise the disintegration of his world. The triangle of Ellida, Edward, and Finn feels genuinely dangerous, capable of tilting this world off its axis.

The daughters, exuberantly played by Gracie Oddie-Jones and Isobel Akuwudike, embody a cracklingly funny gen Z self-righteousness and bring a sense of generational change and discontent that broadens the political landscape of the production. The archly knowing dialogue is performed with pleasing, overlapping off-handedness by the ensemble cast.

The production’s relationship with Ibsen is rich and interesting, extending beyond this single play. Ibsen brought back one of the characters from The Lady from the Sea four years later in The Master Builder, an otherwise quite separate play. Stone has clearly sensed Ibsen’s breaking of boundaries between his plays in this decision, which allowed us to glimpse an expanded Ibsen universe.

Running with this shared universe idea, in 2017, Stone created the play Ibsen House for Internationaal Theater Amsterdam, a collage of Ibsen narratives in a three-dimensional glass-sided house. He’s at it again here, nicking bits of other plays to enrich this one.

Ellida’s confrontation with Finn (the climate activist with whom she had a sexual relationship aged 15) borrows from a similar confrontation in The Master Builder (1893). In the character of her family friend Heath (Joe Alwyn), Stone combines the terminal illness of Dr Rank from A Doll’s House (1879) with the sculptural ambitions of Rubek from When We Dead Awaken (1900).

But this adaptation shies away from the alien strangeness that makes Ibsen genuinely radical. Ibsen’s plays wrestle uncompromisingly with themselves. Many of his mature plays seem transformed by the forces unleashed by their stories, such that works like A Doll’s House, An Enemy of the People (1882), Hedda Gabler (1891), or John Gabriel Borkman (1897) start as one kind of play and end as quite another.

The Lady from the Sea is the same, beginning as a bucolic family play and ending somewhere mythological and elemental. But Stone’s version, for all its contemporary references, remains a family drama. The last scene, in which everyone explains their feelings at length is the kind of neat and tidy playwriting that Ibsen worked hard to abolish.

There are choices here that echo those made when A Doll’s House first reached Britain in 1884. Then, its title was changed to Breaking a Butterfly and its protagonists, Nora and Torvald Helmer, were domesticated as Flossy and Humphrey Goddard. The original’s radical ending of Nora’s shattering departure was replaced with Humphrey rescuing his wife and burning an incriminating document. He does this while mansplaining that: “Flossy was a child yesterday: today she is a woman.”

Stone’s adaptation isn’t so egregious, but does share a bit of that impulse. The production makes Ibsen relatable, but Ibsen’s plays are always strange, always challenging audiences to confront compelling difference. By translating Ibsen’s environmental and psychological radicalism into familiar contemporary anxieties, Stone is leaving some of the challenge behind.

Perhaps we think we know Ibsen so well and he needs updating. But, as with this year’s Ghosts (Lyric Hammersmith) and My Master Builder (West End), the updating sometimes lightens and tames their dark strangeness. I worry that a generation will only ever see smart versions of Ibsen but will never get a chance to know the originals.

This is a fierce, powerful evening of theatre. But should we not sometimes, like Ellida, meet the challenge of the alien stranger from across the sea?


Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


The Conversation

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

ref. The Lady from the Sea: a fierce play that shies from the wonderful unknowability of Henrik Ibsen’s original – https://theconversation.com/the-lady-from-the-sea-a-fierce-play-that-shies-from-the-wonderful-unknowability-of-henrik-ibsens-original-265515

Who gets to do science? A demand for English is hurting marginalised researchers

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Tatsuya Amano, Associate Professor, School of the Environment, The University of Queensland

Nikita Palenov/Unsplash

Despite growing calls for diversity, equity and inclusion in science, a new study reveals how deep-rooted disparities continue to shape who gets to contribute to science.

We surveyed 908 environmental scientists from eight countries with varying levels of income and English proficiency. In our study, published in PLOS Biology today, we found that the gender, language and economic background of scientists significantly affect their ability to publish their work, especially in English.

The results are striking. Women publish up to 45% fewer papers in English than men. Female non-native English speakers from lower-income countries publish up to 70% fewer papers in English, compared with a male native English speaker from a high-income country.

This gap doesn’t necessarily reflect individual productivity. Evidence shows it stems from systemic barriers that limit fair participation in science.

Scientific productivity gap based on English-language peer-reviewed papers. Shown are the maximum % differences in the number of peer-reviewed papers published by female native English speakers from a high-income country (-45%), female non-native English speakers from a high-income country (-60%), and female non-native English speakers from a lower-middle income country (-70%), compared to male native English speakers from a high-income country (red flag).
Tatsuya Amano, CC BY

The triple disadvantage

Scientific productivity is often measured by the researcher’s number of publications in English. But this metric overlooks the challenges faced by many researchers around the world.

Women already publish fewer articles, receive fewer citations and win fewer grants than men. They are also more likely to take career breaks for caregiving, and are less likely to be involved in collaboration compared with men.

As English is now the common language of science, non-native English speakers face additional hurdles. They spend more time writing papers, and are more likely to have their work rejected and returned for revision due to issues with English. They also often experience anxiety, imposter syndrome and lower satisfaction when conducting science.

Researchers from lower-income countries also struggle with limited funding, fewer opportunities for international collaboration, and travel restrictions.

When these three attributes intersect, the impact is overwhelming.

Taking English out of it

Importantly, when we looked at publications in English and in other languages combined, the productivity gap narrowed significantly.

Non-native English speakers and scientists from lower-income countries often publish more papers overall compared with their native English-speaking, high-income counterparts at the same career stage.

Scientific productivity gap narrows significantly when we look at total publications including those in non-English languages. Shown are the maximum % differences in the number of English-language and non-English-language peer-reviewed papers published by female native English speakers from a high-income country (-45%), female non-native English speakers from a high-income country (-35%), and female non-native English speakers from a lower-middle income country (-25%), compared to male native English speakers from a high-income country (red flag).
Tatsuya Amano, CC BY

Levelling the playing field

The findings have serious implications for how we should measure the performance of scientists. Metrics based solely on publications in English can misrepresent the true productivity of researchers who face language and economic barriers.

This is especially problematic in hiring, promotion and funding decisions. The number of publications in English often play a dominant role in these, even in countries where English is not widely spoken.

The Declaration on Research Assessment, a worldwide initiative, advocates that research assessment should focus on what is published rather than where it is published. Including publications in languages other than English in research assessment aligns with this policy.

In fact, publications in non-English languages can provide valuable knowledge, especially in fields such as biodiversity conservation. Recognising the importance of publications in various languages would also enrich global scientific understanding and allow us to tackle global challenges more effectively.

Institutions and funders should also consider disadvantages related to linguistic and economic backgrounds in research assessments. For example, the Australian Research Council has a policy that allows researchers to declare career interruptions due to factors such as caregiving or illness.

To level the playing field, this policy should also account for the systemic disadvantages experienced by non-native English speakers and scientists from lower-income countries.

Toward a more inclusive science

Recording the numbers on these disparities is just the first step. Making a real difference in dismantling these systemic barriers will likely require a fundamental shift in how we conduct science.

For example, artificial intelligence (AI) translation is rapidly improving and becoming more widely available. Would we still need to use English as the common language of science in, say, ten years’ time? We can start envisioning a future where everyone, regardless of linguistic background, can write papers in their own language and read any paper in their own language with the help of AI translation.

Two futures for academic publishing using AI language tools. (A) In Future 1, scientific papers continue to be published in English. AI is used by those with limited English proficiency to translate information between their preferred language and English. (B) In Future 2, scientific papers are published in any language of the authors’ choice (English or Japanese in this example). AI is used by those without proficiency in the publication language (e.g., Japanese) to translate information between that language and their preferred language (e.g., English).
Amano et al. (2025) PLOS Biology, CC BY

If you find yourself struggling in science as a woman, a non-native English speaker, or someone from a lower-income country, remember it’s not just you. The challenges you face often come from bigger systemic barriers in science, not personal shortcomings.

Science is fun. Everyone, no matter their background, should have an equal chance to enjoy it. But as science becomes increasingly global, embracing diversity is not just a matter of equity. It’s essential for fostering innovation and addressing the complex challenges facing our world.

The Conversation

Tatsuya Amano receives funding from the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship and Discovery Project.

ref. Who gets to do science? A demand for English is hurting marginalised researchers – https://theconversation.com/who-gets-to-do-science-a-demand-for-english-is-hurting-marginalised-researchers-264493

What will the UN’s Gaza genocide report achieve?

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

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


The report of the UN’s independent international commission of inquiry on Palestine, released this week, makes for gruelling reading. It found that Israel’s 23-month campaign in Gaza is being waged “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”. This, according to the commission, amounts to genocide under the Geneva conventions.

The detailed 72-page report has found that Israel’s military, under the direction of its political leaders, satisfy four of five acts specified by the convention as genocidal. This includes the genocidal act of “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”. This, the report said, was due to the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) attack on Gaza’s only IVF clinic at the end of 2023, destroying an estimated 4,000 embryos and 1,000 sperm samples.

The key issue in arguments around genocide, and the reason why charges are so rarely brought, is the word “intent”. To show the intent to destroy the Palestinian people, the report quotes Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defence minister Yoav Gallant, Israeli president Isaac Herzog and other political and military leaders using “inciting, provocative, dehumanising language”. The report gives several examples of this language. It concludes: “The statements were received by the Israeli security forces as an order to destroy Palestinians in Gaza and such order was indeed executed through military operations.”

Malak Benslama-Dabdoub, an expert in international human rights law at Royal Holloway, University of London, walks us through the report and summarises its findings. But crucially she asks: will this report make any difference? Attempts to condemn the violence and call for an end to the campaign in the UN security council have always fallen foul of America’s use of its security council veto.

Neither Israel not the US are signatories to the International Criminal Court, which has issued warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant. So Netanyahu has been able to visit the US without fear of arrest and the death toll in Gaza continues to rise daily. While Israel continues to be protected by its allies, writes Benslama-Dabdoub, it will continue to act with impunity.




Read more:
Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, says UN commission. But will it make any difference?


And so it goes on. Israel has just launched a major new ground offensive on Gaza City, where scores are already reported to have been killed and thousands have been forced to flee for their lives.

It’s hard to tell how many people lived in Gaza City before the assault began, but some estimates put it at around 590,000. A large proportion of these people will now be forced south, along with much of the rest of the population of the Strip.

It’s not hard to divine that the intention of the Netanyahu government is to push many, if not all, of these displaced people through the Rafah crossing into Egypt. Rory McCarthy, a Middle East expert and former Guardian correspondent in Jerusalem, says this much should be clear from a recent statement by the Israeli prime minister that: “The Egyptian foreign ministry prefers to imprison residents in Gaza who would prefer to leave the war zone.”

Egypt will not accept this, writes McCarthy. It already hosts around 150,000 displaced Palestinians and reacted very strongly against a suggestion by the US president, Donald Trump, that the population of Gaza could be relocated to Egypt and Jordan. (Jordan, which has more than 2 million Palestinians displaced in various conflicts, was also vehemently opposed to the idea.)

This is all putting Egypt’s relationship with Israel under severe pressure and destabilising the regime of Egypt’s strongman leader, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, as well, McCarthy writes.




Read more:
Why Egypt is not bowing to pressure to accept Palestinian refugees


Relations between the two countries have been under pressure since the war began two years ago. It has reached the point that, at an emergency summit of Arab states after Israel launched an airstrike against Hamas leaders who were discussing a peace deal in Doha, the capital of Qatar earlier this month, the Egyptian leader referred to Israel – technically Egypt’s ally – as “the enemy”.

The strike against Qatar is likely to have serious repercussions across the region and is a disaster for diplomacy and mediation, writes M. Waqas Haider, an expert in Middle East diplomacy at Lancaster University. Qatar had built up a reputation as a safe haven in which warring parties could meet in safely for talks. Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar risks destroying that at a stroke.




Read more:
Israel’s strike on Qatar was a serious blow against diplomacy in the Middle East


Trump’s vision of a Gaza ‘Riviera’

The US president’s intention to move displaced Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt and Jordan was made clear in February shortly after the news emerged of a proposal to turn the post-war Gaza Strip into an enormous real estate investment. Trump posted a video, which few took too seriously at the time as it featured a large golden statue of the US president himself.

But last week the Washington Post published a 38-page document, resembling a property developer’s prospectus, which lays out in some detail a plan to turn Gaza from “a demolished Iranian proxy to a prosperous Abrahamic ally”. Any Palestinians left in the Strip would be given cash incentives to leave or tokens in return for their land entitling them to an apartment in one of the shiny new high-rise apartment blocks the plan envisages.

Artists impression of the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation plan.
A real estate developer’s dream: Gaza ‘Riviera’.
Image supplied.

Rafeef Ziadah says it’s a part of an ambitious plan to reposition the Middle East as part of a new US-led order linking India to Europe. Imec (the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor) is envisaged as a counterweight to China’s belt and road initiative, writes Ziadah, who researches regional politics at King’s College London and has made something of a speciality of the politics of major infrastructure plans.




Read more:
Donald Trump’s vision for Gaza’s future: what a leaked plan tells us about US regional strategy


The forced relocation of people as a result of conflict is considered to be a war crime under international law. But once again, it is difficult to make such judgments unless they are tested in court. Another category of war crime arguably taking place regularly across Palestinian areas is collective punishment. This is defined as “a form of sanction imposed on persons or a group of persons in response to a crime committed by one of them or a member of the group”.

Leonie Fleischmann asserts that Israel has been using this tactic as a form of deterrence for years. Just last week the IDF detained 1,500 Palestinian men in retaliation for a bomb which went off in Jerusalem, injuring two. Days before two gunmen boarded a bus in the same city and started shooting, killing six people. Israel imposed harsh penalties against the shooters’ villages.

Fleischmann, an expert in Israeli politics at City St George’s, University of London, says Israel argues that this is legal, as an occupying power it has the right to protect its own security against what is likely to be a hostile population. But there are flaws to this argument, says Fleischmann, who explains how the laws against collective punishment work.




Read more:
What international law says about Israel’s collective punishments against Palestinian civilians


With the UK expected to recognise Palestinian statehood as soon as this weekend, the latest edition of our podcast, The Conversation Weekly, is a history of the Palestinian people’s aspirations for an independent state. Podcasts editor Gemma Ware interviews Maha Nassar, a US-based Palestinian historian, about the Palestinian liberation movement.




Read more:
From resistance to intifada to recognition: the origins of an independent Palestinian state – podcast



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


The Conversation

ref. What will the UN’s Gaza genocide report achieve? – https://theconversation.com/what-will-the-uns-gaza-genocide-report-achieve-265617

How the spiritual sound of the shofar shapes the Jewish New Year – a Jewish studies scholar explains

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Sarah Pessin, Professor of Philosophy, University of Denver

Mark Lipof blows a shofar during the lead-up to Yom Kippur at Temple Ohabei Shalom in Brookline, Mass., in 2010. Michael Fein/MediaNews Group/Boston Herald via Getty Images

It’s the Jewish High Holiday season, and Jews the world over are preparing to visit their local synagogues – for community, for prayer, and to hear the arresting, soulful sounds of the shofar.

An animal horn – typically a ram’s horn – used as a wind instrument, the shofar is featured over 70 times in the Torah. In ancient Jewish tradition, horns were sounded for everything from calls to action to royal coronations. In the spirit of both, the Bible calls upon Jews to raise forth shofar blasts on Rosh Hashana, which literally means the “head,” or start, of the year.

The holiday is a time of communitywide soul-searching. Beyond marking the Jewish new year, it also commemorates the world’s birthday, the creation of humans, and the sovereignty and majesty of God. Marking the start of the High Holiday season, Rosh Hashana kicks off a 10-day period of reflection that culminates in Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, whose last moments are also marked by the shofar’s call.

According to the Talmud, a central collection of rabbinic teachings on Jewish law and theology, three divine books are opened on Rosh Hashana. Each person is inscribed into one of the three: one book for the righteous, one for the wicked and one for those in between, who are given till Yom Kippur to set their hearts straight.

Rabbis say the shofar’s sounds cause God to move from his “throne of judgement” to his “throne of mercy.” They also say that shofar sounds can penetrate human hearts, prompting them toward repentance – while mimicking the broken-hearted cries of someone recognizing just how much they need to repent.

A man in a black skullcap and white shirt, who has a long white beard, blows into a large animal horn.
A Jewish man preparing for Rosh Hashana tests the sound of a shofar before buying it.
Menahem Kahana/AFP via Getty Images

As a scholar of Jewish tradition, I’ve worked extensively on the downright esoteric writings of Moses Maimonides, a 12th-century Jewish philosopher. When it comes to the meaning of the shofar’s call, though, Maimonides offers a refreshingly down-to-earth take in the Mishneh Torah, his guide to Jewish law: “Wake up you sleepy ones from your sleep and you who slumber, arise. Inspect your deeds, repent, remember your Creator.”

Sonic-spiritual pause

The sound of the shofar is uniquely rich and searching, somewhere between a human cry and an otherworldly hum. It fills the room as well as one’s entire body – inviting a moment of pause, of existential reckoning.

During the High Holidays there are three varieties of shofar blasts, which are combined into a series of sound constellations throughout the prayer service.

The first kind of blast is a single, solid sounding called “tekiah.” This one also comes in a “tekiah gedolah,” or “big tekiah,” version that stretches on for a longer stint. The second sound pattern is called “shevarim,” made up of three medium blares. And the third is called “teruah,” consisting of at least nine staccato soundings – or, for Jews of Yemenite heritage, another single tone.

The shofar is sounded throughout the two days of Rosh Hashana – in some congregations, 100 times per day. The constancy and repetition enhance the sounds’ capacity to engage participants’ minds, hearts and spirits.

Three types of shofar blasts are combined during High Holiday services.

Sourcing shofars

To make a shofar, a horn is boiled to soften its innards for removal. Using heat to straighten part of the horn, the craftsman carefully drills a hole and carves a mouthpiece at one end. Heat can be used to further straighten the horn, and the finish can range from natural to polished.

As for the species and shape of shofars, there are differences of opinion – and of culture. Amid rabbinic debates over straight shofars or curved ones for Rosh Hashana, Maimonides says only a curved ram’s horn will do. Jews of Yemenite heritage use the kudu antelope, whose spectacularly long horns produce a strikingly deep sound. And the “Moroccan shofar” is said to have emerged during the Spanish Inquisition: Because Jews needed to hide their shofars to avoid persecution, they were crafted to be flat and straight.

The hollowness of the shofar is what produces its unique sound, so it needs to be made of a horn, not an antler. And it will need to come from a kosher animal, an animal permissible to eat under Jewish law – which, for land animals, means having split hooves and chewing its cud.

On both counts, only certain animals will do, including goats, antelopes and rams. And regardless of the kind of shofar it is, it takes some practice to get a sound to come out of it at all.

A woman in a blue dress and white prayer shawl blows into a large animal horn.
Rabbi Carolyn Braun plays a shofar during a ceremony at The Cedars retirement community in Portland, Maine, in September 2013.
Carl D. Walsh/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images

Holy covenant

The popular use of rams’ horns is also a nod to the biblical story of the binding of Isaac, which is traditionally read during Rosh Hashana services.

According to the Book of Genesis, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, his beloved son. After nearly going through with the killing, Abraham has a heavenly vision in which he is thanked for his loyalty to God and instructed to spare Isaac after all. Abraham sees a ram caught in a nearby thicket, which he sacrifices to God instead. The next verses describe God blessing Abraham and all his future descendants – which Jews read as a key moment in their identity as a people.

In the Talmud and across a number of other Jewish texts, blowing a ram’s horn for the new year invokes this same redemptive energy: God’s willingness to watch over not just Abraham and Isaac but the entire Jewish community, in a spirit of mercy and blessing.

Using a bull’s horn as a shofar, on the other hand, doesn’t fly. Rabbis rule it out because the term for a cow horn in the bible is “keren,” not “shofar.” The bull’s horn is also seen as too much of a reminder of another key story from the Torah: the Sin of the Golden Calf.

As the Book of Exodus describes it, God led the people of Israel out of slavery in Egypt. He then shares that he would reveal his law to them as a form of everlasting covenant, working through Moses as his spokesperson.

To make the point, God called Moses up to Mt. Sinai, accompanying him in the form of thunder, lightning and fire. Together with pillars of smoke, and louder and louder shofar blasts, the experience left the people awestruck. While details are debated, the text says that they then assented to God’s law – including the commandment not to worship idols.

Yet when Moses heads back to the mountaintop, the Israelites fear he’s abandoned them. Eager for immediate spiritual support, and in spite of having just agreed to God’s law, they built a bovine idol and proceed to worship at its feet.

God considers destroying the people. Yet Moses reminds God of the promise to protect Abraham and his descendants – a direct loop back to the binding of Isaac.

What’s in a word

It appears that the origin of the term “shofar” is “šappāru,” a word in the Akkadian language of the ancient Near East that originally referred to types of rams, deer or wild goats. But there is also a rabbinic commentary connecting the word “shofar” to the Hebrew term for beauty and improvement – suggesting the shofar inspires people to beautify their souls, aligning their actions with their values.

Regardless of the historical etymology of the word, this reading certainly captures the tenor and texture of hearing the shofar during the High Holidays. Its sounds inspire Jews to take spiritual inventory, surveying where the previous year has led them and planning the paths upon which they will next embark.

The Conversation

Sarah Pessin 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. How the spiritual sound of the shofar shapes the Jewish New Year – a Jewish studies scholar explains – https://theconversation.com/how-the-spiritual-sound-of-the-shofar-shapes-the-jewish-new-year-a-jewish-studies-scholar-explains-263687

Trump state visit: behind talk of harmony there are notes of discord

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jason Ralph, Professor of International Relations, University of Leeds

An unusual feature of Donald Trump’s second state visit to the UK was the spectacle of the Royal Marines, the Coldstream Guards and the Royal Air Force “beating retreat” as the president and King Charles looked on.

This is a traditional military ceremony that started in the 17th century and marked the closing of camp gates and the lowering of flags. It is, by all accounts, the kind of British “soft power” that excites the president and consolidates “the special relationship” between allies.

But one cannot help wondering if what this ceremony marked was in fact the final retreat of the US and UK from their self-defined role as defenders of an international order based on liberal and democratic values.

How are we otherwise to reconcile the fact that a “populist” American president, supposedly elected on an anti-elitist message, so visibly revelled in facing an audience composed almost exclusively of the elites of a monarchical system (on Wednesday) and the tech-business community (on Thursday)?

Trump may have had the unprecedented honour of a second state visit. But what does it say about “the special relationship” between common people (if not heads of state) when the visit was arranged to land in a week the House of Commons was not sitting, meaning he would not be able to address the national parliament?

Perhaps it says something about the retreat of American Republican virtues and the rise of an “imperial presidency” (just as King George III in Hamilton the musical predicted). Trump would not want to be reminded that it was President Obama who had the recent honour of speaking to the British people through their elected representatives in Westminster Hall.

Meanwhile, how do we reconcile the sense that Prime Minister Keir Starmer knows how to handle President Trump with Starmer’s apparent inability to prevent the political retreat of his own government?

The answer to that is that the prime minister may be a better diplomat than he is a politician. He understands that flattery makes Trump the man happy, but he seems less certain about how to deal with Trumpism the idea.

Donald Trump talking to Keir Starmer.
Trump and Starmer behind the scenes.
Number 10/Flickr, CC BY

Trumpism has inspired so-called “new right” movements throughout the western world. In the UK, it defeated Starmer’s preferred brand of progressive internationalism when Nigel Farage pushed for and won a vote to leave the European Union in 2016.

In the wake of this state visit, the government will claim success by pointing to the £150 billion of investment apparently secured through tech deals. It is not, however, clear what role the US state, or indeed the state visit, had in securing (as opposed to announcing) that.

In the meantime, Starmer’s Labour is still reluctant to push back against new right thinking by pointing to the cost Brexit has had on government tax revenues.

A similar concern is being voiced on the cost of the new right’s approach to immigration in the US. The president proudly defended his administration’s actions on immigration and even recommended the UK deploy the military to manage migration. But armed raids on Hyundai factories in the US have left another key ally, South Korea, questioning its longstanding commitment to invest there.

This state visit has coincided with the United Nations Commission of Inquiry finding that Israel has engaged in four of the five genocidal acts as defined under international law since the beginning of its war with Hamas in 2023.

One cannot expect policy – and certainly not policy differences – to make their way into banquet speeches. But the expectation that Trump will simply ignore UK pleas to pressure Israel into stopping its offensive makes the Windsor scenes difficult viewing for many.

Middle East policy differences were on display at the Chequers press conference and the UK government will seek to mollify its critics by following through on its intention to imminently recognise Palestine as a sovereign state. But without US support, the UK cannot expect this to make an immediate difference to the humanitarian situation.

Notes of discord

There was an additional musical theme to the speeches at the state banquet during Trump’s visit. The president described the US and UK as “two notes in the same chord”.

That may be the case, but there are many discordant notes sounded when the president’s words are mixed with the political soundtrack beyond Windsor castle and Chequers. Outside these sheltered surroundings, the mood music is changing.

The images of militaries marching in royal gardens resonate with the recent ceremonial displays of hard power in Washington and Beijing. Putin standing alongside Xi no doubt disappointed Trump, who reportedly tried to ally with Russia to balance the power of China. He was explicit on that at Chequers. Trump feels “let down” by Putin.

The progressive side of UK foreign policy thinking hopes this now means Trump will be more committed to Ukraine and the liberal principle of national self-determination. But perhaps the wider implication of these discordant notes is that “the special relationship” is being reimagined as a focal point in an international order of competing power blocks. This state visit may indeed come to symbolise the retreat of the liberal international order.

The Conversation

Jason Ralph has previously received funding from UK Research Councils and the European Union. He is a member of the Labour Party.

ref. Trump state visit: behind talk of harmony there are notes of discord – https://theconversation.com/trump-state-visit-behind-talk-of-harmony-there-are-notes-of-discord-265519

A ceremonial sword and ‘beating the retreat’: decoding the rituals of Donald Trump’s state visit

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Francesca Jackson, PhD candidate, Lancaster Law School, Lancaster University

State visits are always grand occasions, but Donald Trump’s second was unprecedented in terms of scale and spectacle. The president was treated to the most impressive ceremonial welcome ever laid on for any head of state.

After enjoying a carriage ride through the grounds of Windsor Castle with the king, queen and prince and princess of Wales, the president was greeted by the largest guard of honour ever, comprising 1,300 troops and 120 horses. A lunch, private tour of St George’s Chapel and a Red Arrows flypast followed, before the day culminated in a lavish white-tie state banquet.

All this pomp and pageantry has a purpose and a keen eye can spot meaning in most parts of the itinerary.

For example, there were obvious nods to the government’s priorities for this visit throughout the first day, even before the government meetings began. Prime minister Keir Starmer has wanted to focus on tech and defence, so we saw key business leaders, including the head of Apple and CEO of OpenAI, on the guest list for the state banquet.

There was also a clear focus on defence throughout the first day’s proceedings. As well as inspecting the customary guard of honour, the President took part in the “beating the retreat” ceremony – the first time that this historic military parade has been performed at an incoming state visit.

British and American F-35 fighter jets were part of the aerial flypast and when symbolic gifts were exchanged, Trump presented the king with a replica of a President Eisenhower sword. This, he said, was a “reminder of the historical partnership that was critical to winning World War II”.

But perhaps the government’s objectives were seen most clearly in the speeches delivered during the state banquet. King Charles explicitly reminded the President that the UK had agreed “the first trade deal” of any country with his administration, which he said had brought “jobs and growth” to both countries and hoped would allow for them to “go even further as we build this new era of our partnership”.

Most striking of all, however, were the king’s comments on defence. He explicitly told Trump that “in two world wars, we fought together to defeat the forces of tyranny. Today, as tyranny once again threatens Europe, we and our allies stand together in support of Ukraine, to deter aggression and secure peace”.

The first day of any state visit is all about royal pageantry, with discussions of politics usually left for day two. This is because in the UK’s constitutional monarchy, the monarch is bound by the doctrine of political neutrality, which means that the king must remain neutral on political matters.

But some have argued that Charles was, with these comments, straying into politics and went too far. The journalist Michael Wolff said the king was effectively correcting Trump over his failure to strike a peace deal in Ukraine and that the President would have been “super irritated” by the intervention.

However, it is important to note that the king’s words will have been chosen carefully for him by the UK government. This is because Charles is bound by the cardinal convention, a constitutional rule according to which he must act on the advice of the government. All his speeches are written by ministers, and this particular speech reportedly went through many drafts to ensure that the king “pushes the right buttons without crossing political lines”.

The button that this speech was designed to push was peace in Ukraine. After his very public spat with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office earlier this year, the UK government has been concerned that Trump is indifferent about who wins the Russia-Ukraine war and favours an appeasement solution with Putin. It wants to get Trump firmly on Ukraine’s side – and thought the king was the best person to deliver this message.

The king is a skilled diplomat whose unrivalled soft power gives him the unique ability to influence some of the biggest political issues of our time. And he seems to get on well with Trump. The king met the President during his first state visit in 2019, wrote to him following his assassination attempt and, unusually, invited him for an unprecedented second state visit with a special hand written note.

There seemed to be genuine warmth between the two men during this second visit. The President, for example, praised the king, describing him as “his friend who everybody loves” and “a great gentleman and a great king”.

And there are signs that this flattery and warmth nullified any potential annoyance over the Ukraine comments. In his own speech, Trump effused that the day was “one of the highest honours” of his life and that “the word ‘special’ does not begin to do justice” to the UK-US relationship.

If the state visit helps increase US support for the British economy and Ukraine, it will be a job well done for the royals.

The Conversation

Francesca Jackson 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. A ceremonial sword and ‘beating the retreat’: decoding the rituals of Donald Trump’s state visit – https://theconversation.com/a-ceremonial-sword-and-beating-the-retreat-decoding-the-rituals-of-donald-trumps-state-visit-265595

Can the UK fast-track nuclear power without cutting corners on safety?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Haynes, Lecturer in Nuclear Engineering, University of East Anglia

Before the pomp of President Trump’s state visit to the UK, Washington and London announced a series of collaborations on nuclear research and regulation. A reminder to cynics that perhaps these events have some substance.

Britain is already undergoing a nuclear revival. Large power stations are under construction (albeit much delayed) at Sizewell in Suffolk and Hinkley Point in Somerset. Rolls Royce has been confirmed as the supplier for a fleet of small modular reactors (SMRs). These reactors use similar technology to the big power plants, but with all components designed to fit into a single container.

Now, as part of the US-UK deal, we can add proposals to build 12 advanced modular reactors (AMRs), using fundamentally different technology, in Hartlepool.

The UK’s nuclear regulator is therefore being asked to consider radically different designs on a scale and pace never before seen. That’s partly why, as part of the deal, the two countries have agreed to accept each other’s safety checks. The government claims this will “halve the time for a nuclear project to be licensed”. The question is whether this can be done as safely.

Two large cooling towers
With four reactors, Plant Vogtle in Georgia is the largest nuclear power plant in the US.
PrasitRodphan / shutterstock

The US and UK take fundamentally different approaches to nuclear regulation.

The US’s Nuclear Regulation Commission (NRC) takes a “prescriptive” approach. It sets detailed rules based on its own research and enforces them directly.

Like police setting speed limits, the regulator decides the standards and then ensures nuclear operators meet them. If an accident happens, operators can point to meeting every requirement as evidence they followed the rules. They could even legitimately blame the regulator.

The UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) takes a “descriptive” approach. It sets broad standards but leaves operators to prove how they will meet them.

In road terms, the US sets the speed limit and checks drivers obey it. The UK simply says cars must stay on the road, leaving drivers to decide their own limits, prove they’re safe, and take full responsibility if they crash.

These two approaches are driven to a large extent by the two country’s history and make up of their nuclear industries.

The US has a few standard reactor designs, many operators, and vast federal research labs. The UK has fewer, often state-owned (or foreign state-owned) operators running bespoke reactors fleets, with in-house expertise.

The result is that the US’s regulator – the NRC – is large, well-funded, and deeply involved in design and research. The UK equivalent – the ONR – is smaller and focused on critically reviewing the judgement and processes of the operators.

Both systems have worked well. Nuclear regulation and the associated safety record in both countries is regarded as being among the best in the world.

Why collaboration now matters

A sudden surge of new nuclear in the UK would make closer alignment with US regulators more attractive. If the US has already assessed a proposed power plant design, the UK regulator could potentially rely on that evidence rather than duplicate the work. This would avoid bottlenecks and speed up approvals.

The aviation sector already does something similar. Aircraft are certified by either the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the European Union Aviation Safety Authority (EASA), with airlines around the world trusting those approvals.

There is a strong element of reciprocity, driven by the need for aircraft to fly from one nation to another. The approach makes sense, as it would be absurd for every airline or national regulator to retest the same Airbus wing. Nuclear power, some argue, should move in this direction.

The risk of imported risk

But there are dangers in relying too heavily on foreign regulators. The Boeing 737-Max scandal, in which software error caused two near-identical accidents and left 346 dead, exposed the need to get regulation right. Political pressure and weak oversight at the FAA contributed to design flaws being missed. If the UK simply rubber-stamped US approvals, it could import these risks too.

The nuclear industry has an extra history of mistrust. The US’s 1946 McMahon Act restricted the sharing of nuclear data between the US and UK, and a number of British spies were exposed in the US. Civilian and military technologies overlap, and there is a desire to prevent nuclear proliferation.

So while UK-US collaboration could boost Britain’s nuclear industry and accelerate the path to low-carbon energy, independence and transparency will be essential. Any perception of corner cutting or transatlantic political interference could undermine public trust and derail Britain’s nuclear ambitions.


Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


The Conversation

Thomas Haynes receives funding from Department for Energy Security & Net Zero and the UK Atomic Energy Authority. He is affiliated with the Nuclear Institute.

ref. Can the UK fast-track nuclear power without cutting corners on safety? – https://theconversation.com/can-the-uk-fast-track-nuclear-power-without-cutting-corners-on-safety-265614