Cash cows, scapegoats — and now global talent: Asian international students want to be seen for who they are

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Elizabeth Buckner, Associate Professor of Higher Education, University of Toronto

Canada’s 2024 cuts to international study permits led to significantly larger reductions in study permit approvals than intended, according to a report by the auditor general tabled in March 2026.

The report found the reduction in study permit approvals was driven by a decline in applications and lower-than-projected approval rates, with smaller provinces disproportionately affected.




Read more:
Should I stay or should I go? Rural international students face housing, job crunch


The report also highlights how the reforms failed to meaningfully improve oversight and program integrity. Instead, they emphasized surveillance and monitoring.

For decades, international students were celebrated in Canada for their economic contributions, skills and diversity. But as the number of temporary migrants in Canada skyrocketed after the COVID-19 pandemic, international students became convenient scapegoats for a broader housing and affordability crisis.




Read more:
International students cap falsely blames them for Canada’s housing and health-care woes


In 2024, the federal government announced a major shift, cutting the number of international study permits it would issue by roughly a third. In part, this was justified in the name of reining in excess and fraud.

Examining shifting policy

As researchers who have studied the racialization of Asian international students and their experiences, we’ve watched as federal policy and public discourse around international students has dramatically shifted, making students’ daily lives more difficult, often with inadequate institutional supports.

In our recent book Not your Cash Cow, Not Your Scapegoat: Student Migration and Canadian Universities, we study the experiences of over 145 international students from China, India and South Korea at five flagship universities.

We find that colleges and universities continue to support international students through piecemeal services, rather than reckoning with what it would mean to become anti-racist organizations.

Changing notions of student migrants

Another report issued recently from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented to the House of Commons, acknowledges aspects of international students’ precarity and vulnerabilities.

But solutions to address these conditions are notably absent from its recommendations. Instead, it reinforces claims that position international students as contributing to housing costs, health-care wait times and youth unemployment.

In the 2025 budget, the federal government signalled yet another shift in its approach and language around international students.

The budget announced a desire to welcome international graduate students as part of a broader strategic effort to recruit exceptional “global talent,” with new scholarships for international doctoral students.

This approach repositions certain international students as highly desirable. It privileges those with high levels of cultural and economic capital. At the same time, it signals a desire to further cut the number of study permits available generally.

A racialized group facing racist backlash

As the volatility of the past few years makes clear, policy efforts remain focused on managing the scale and composition of international student populations.

University discussions of international students tend to celebrate their diversity while ignoring race, while student migrants have been on the receiving end of xenophobia and racism.




Read more:
International students are not to blame for Canada’s housing crisis


The vast majority of international students in Canada come from Asia: Indian students make up the largest share, with many hailing from Punjab.

Much of the blame in terms of casting international students as responsible for housing pressures has been directed at these Indian students, even as they themselves are among the most affected. This has occurred alongside an alarming rise in police-reported hate crimes targeting South Asians.

Chinese international students also experienced the brunt of anti-Asian racism during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Skepticism around Canada’s global alliances

The federal government’s current shift towards welcoming “global talent” is its Canada-India Talent and Innovation Strategy, which aims to boost national science and innovation capacity.

This also coincides with rampant skepticism over China’s growing role in international science and concerns over intellectual property.

At the same time, international students face greater scrutiny, regulations and differential tuition policies.

Many international students pay up to six times what domestic students pay. Average international student tuition has continued to increase since 2024, while many programs and student services are being cut to the detriment of students and communities.

Diverse experiences of Asian students

Our research examines how the administrative and legal category of the “international student” flattens the diverse and heterogeneous experiences of students from Asia and their multidimensional everyday lives.

The stereotypes, micro-aggressions, othering and racism that international students face on- an off-campus were exacerbated by COVID-19 but predate and outlast the pandemic.

We also found that international students are often not included in their institutions’ equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) efforts, which tend to focus primarily on domestic students.

International students are also under-supported by campus support services that often lack cultural awareness and sensitivity. Such conditions contribute to a sense of conditional belonging and inclusion.

Yet, despite these structural and interpersonal challenges, many international students from Asia build deep connections and communities, often through online networks or in spaces comprised of multiple ethnic communities. Many continue to hold long-term aspirations to stay in Canada.

Shift in buzzwords

The shift in federal language, which now names selected “exceptional” international students as a source of “global talent,” is not new.

It echoes earlier innovation strategies of the 2000s, which sought to recruit international students as skilled migrants and “highly qualified personnel” for a knowledge economy.

As with prior waves, this language shift represents long-standing patterns in Canadian history, whereby immigration policy oscillates between recruitment and restriction.

If our project teaches us anything, it’s that the shift from scapegoating international students to now selectively welcoming “global talent” will not change broader structural conditions. New recruits will still face challenges around racism and integration.

It may even introduce new forms of academic competition and suspicion in a society where some institutions have already been criticized as “too Asian.”

Neighbours, classmates, friends

Our research has made clear that recent policy shifts risk reproducing long-standing assumptions — that international students are welcome only to the extent that they are useful. We call this “transactional integration” in our book. Previously, international students were useful for their revenue and future labour, but now Canada needs them for its competitiveness agenda.

Yet again, this transactional and conditional approach to inclusion means Canadian may never get to know the international students who come to study, with their full and complex lives and their distinctive needs.

These are people who will be our neighbours, classmates and friends — if we are willing to see student migrants defined by qualities other than their visa status.

The Conversation

Elizabeth Buckner receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Government of Canada.

Ashley Manuel, Eun Gi (Cathy) Kim, and Sophie Xiaoyi Liu do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Cash cows, scapegoats — and now global talent: Asian international students want to be seen for who they are – https://theconversation.com/cash-cows-scapegoats-and-now-global-talent-asian-international-students-want-to-be-seen-for-who-they-are-278359

How emoji use at work can determine how competent your colleagues think you are

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Erin Leigh Courtice, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Psychology, Toronto Metropolitan University

A positive emoji appended to a positive or neutral message is fine, but using one to sugarcoat bad news may detract from competence. (Unsplash/Tim Witzdam)

You’ve typed it, deleted it and typed it again. You need to let your colleague know there’s a problem with a project at work. Should you use a grinning face — 😄 — in that Slack message to soften the blow, or an angry face — 😠 — to show your distress?

If you’ve experienced this type of internal debate, you’re not alone. Instant messaging now dominates workplace communication, with 91 per cent of businesses using two or more chat platforms. But when we instant message, we can’t see our colleagues’ facial expressions. We try to compensate with emojis, using them as stand-ins for non-verbal cues.

But do emojis actually help, or can they backfire?

My recent study, conducted with colleagues at the University of Ottawa and published in Collabra: Psychology, reveals that emoji choice matters. The emoji you pick, and whether it matches the tone of your message, may impact both how competent your co-workers think you are, and how appropriate your message is for the workplace.

The research project

We asked 243 research participants to read short workplace instant messages from a hypothetical co-worker.

The messages varied on three dimensions: the emotional tone (positive, negative or neutral), the emoji attached (a grinning face 😀, an angry face 😠 or none) and whether the sender was described as a woman or a man.

Participants rated how competent they thought the message sender was. They also rated how appropriate the message felt for a professional setting.

An open-plan modern office space, with people working at computers.
Add a grinning face emoji to a negative message, and you may come across as passive-aggressive or insincere.
(Unsplash/Arlington Research)

No emoji is often the safest bet

Overall, messages with no emoji received the highest ratings for competence and appropriateness. A neutral “Can I have Tuesday off?” read as perfectly professional. So did a more positive: “Just attended another super-effective presentation.”

When the sender added a 😀 to either message, the ratings held steady. This is likely a reassuring finding if you’re someone who likes using emojis to sprinkle warmth into your messages.

On the other hand, when the sender added a 😠, competence and appropriateness ratings dropped.

This finding was remarkably consistent: across positive, neutral and negative sentence content, the no-emoji version was either the top-rated option or statistically tied for first place.

Match emoji and message tone

But the real story is that emojis need to match the tone of your message. A grinning face 😀 attached to “Someone broke the printer again” came across as less competent and less appropriate than either a negative emoji or no emoji at all.

Here, the mismatch may have created the impression that the message was passive-aggressive or insincere.

Notably, an angry face 😠 paired with a negative message fared better than one tacked onto a positive or neutral one. However, sending that same negative message with no emoji still outperformed the congruent but angry version.

For negative messages, emojis that fit the emotional tone of the text don’t really help. Those that clash actively hurt.

A woman works at a laptop on a desk surrounded by windows.
Many remote workers rely on instant messaging for workplace communication.
(Unsplash)

Women rated women more strictly

We also tested whether the sender and participant gender changed any of this. For competence, they didn’t — which is notable given evidence that women are judged more harshly for expressing negative emotion in face-to-face workplace settings.

One possibility is that text-based communication mutes the impact of gender enough to blunt that bias. When gender cues are reduced to a name or profile picture at the top of a chat window, rather than continuously signalled through appearance or voice, recipients may simply process them less.

For appropriateness, we found a small but significant effect: women rated negative emojis from women senders as less appropriate than men did. It’s a modest finding, but it aligns with research suggesting that women sometimes hold other women to stricter professional standards — an interesting thread worth pulling on in future work.

Small choices carry weight

The key takeaway for emojis at work is this: match, don’t mask. A positive emoji appended to a positive or neutral message is fine, but using one to sugarcoat bad news may detract from perceptions of competence.

Negative emojis are generally riskier than their positive counterparts, but if you’re going to use one, at least make sure the message underneath is genuinely negative. And when in doubt, the plainest option — no emoji — almost never hurts.

We’re still collectively figuring out the norms of digital professional communication. Of course, a controlled study with undergraduates reading hypothetical messages can only tell us so much about your workplace messaging thread. Workplaces will all have their own norms to navigate, and most of us run private experiments every day in our chat apps.

Studies like this one suggest that the small choices — a grinning face here, or an angry face there — may carry more weight than we think. The good news is that the underlying principle is pretty intuitive: say what you mean, and let the emoji agree with you.

The Conversation

The current study was supported in part by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

ref. How emoji use at work can determine how competent your colleagues think you are – https://theconversation.com/how-emoji-use-at-work-can-determine-how-competent-your-colleagues-think-you-are-280702

Sorry, Tampa Bay, mixed-use districts don’t reverse the dismal economics of sports venues

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By J.C. Bradbury, Professor of Economics, Kennesaw State University

The plan for a new Rays stadium looks promising. But will it deliver for Tampa taxpayers? Tampa Bay Rays

When the Atlanta Braves opened Truist Park in 2017, Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred called it a “watershed” moment.

What drew so much attention to the new Braves’ stadium in suburban Cobb County, Georgia, at the time was its construction within a mixed-use development, known as The Battery Atlanta. Truist Park anchors a live-work-play campus that includes restaurants, shops, hotels, offices and residences. The idea was to create a year-round attraction rather than build a standalone stadium that serves only as a game-day destination.

Manfred declared that this sort of mixed-used district “provides a road map for clubs to get new stadiums built.” And he’s not alone in that belief.

The Tampa Bay Rays’ new owner, Florida home-building mogul Patrick Zalupski, hopes to mimic the Braves’ approach, calling it “the gold standard of what we want to build and develop here in Tampa Bay.”

But what do mixed-use projects like The Battery mean for host communities?

As an economist – and lifelong Braves fan – who lives a few miles from the complex, I’ve had the unique opportunity to experience The Battery as a community member, as well as study it as a scholar. I’ve attended many games, visited on off-days and examined its impact on surrounding businesses, county property values, sales tax receipts and tourism. My forthcoming book, “This One Will Be Different: False Promises and Fiscal Realities of Publicly Funded Stadiums,” looks at the history and economics of public stadium projects, including my hometown Truist Park.

Tampa as a public partner

Critical to Zalupski’s proposal to build a new US$2.3 billion ballpark is a hefty contribution from taxpayers. He is asking the city of Tampa and Hillsborough County to fund at least $1 billion of the cost.

That’s more than triple the $300 million Cobb County devoted to build Truist Park in Georgia, which was funded by a combination of property, hotel and rental car taxes.

In addition to that $1 billion, the state of Florida is offering $180 million for transportation improvements and rebuilding Hillsborough College, whose land would be donated to host the new development.

Rays CEO Ken Babby insists that the immense public outlay is worth it. He described it as “a generational opportunity” for the community that “will strengthen the region by creating jobs, encouraging economic investment and supporting long-term growth.”

But 50 years of consistent research findings show that sports venues don’t generate a financial windfall for host cities. The overwhelming evidence regarding the limited economic benefits of stadiums has produced a strong consensus among economists that sports venues are not worthwhile public investments.

It may seem counterintuitive that stadium events fail to boost local economies, because fans clearly do spend vast sums of money attending games. But most of the spectators in the crowd are locals, who reallocate their spending from other area merchants, rather than generating new commercial activity.

Mixed-use to the rescue?

When the Braves and Cobb County leaders announced their stadium vision, they confidently predicted that The Battery was the key that would unlock the economic potential of the stadium. Truist Park’s complementary development was touted as a game changer that would propel its economic success.

Knowing that past stadium deals had been unprofitable for surrounding communities, the team acknowledged that a standalone venue was unlikely to pay off financially. But with The Battery, president of the Braves Development Company Mike Plant promised, “We’re going to build a city, and we’re going to create tons of jobs, tons of density and year-round tax revenues.”

Now that Truist Park is entering its 10th season, we can assess what the stadium development has meant for the local economy using historical data.

The Braves’ mixed-use development has indeed boosted the team’s bottom line. In 2025, for example, Atlanta Braves Holdings reported that the mixed-use component added $97 million in revenue – primarily from rent, parking and advertising – on top of $635 million from baseball operations.

With those numbers, it’s no wonder the Rays want to follow the Braves’ blueprint.

side-by-side photos of The Battery during the off season and on game day
On the left, fans walk through The Battery to Truist Park on game day, April 11, 2022. On the right, The Battery during the off-season, Feb. 22, 2022.
J.C. Bradbury

Unfortunately, the Battery hasn’t been a boon for taxpayers. My research shows that the relocation of the Braves did attract some new spending into Cobb County. But the gains have been far too small to cover the county’s debt service and other funding obligations, generating an annual loss of around $15 million.

And what spending may be imported into Cobb happens during the baseball season. In other words, The Battery has not been a year-round attraction.

Why didn’t Truist Park’s ancillary development strategy work?

Just as spending inside the ballpark mostly represents a reshuffling of local commerce, purchases within the surrounding district largely come at the expense of other off-campus area businesses. And though nearly $100 million in revenue from the mixed-use development may seem impressive, it’s trivial in comparison to Cobb County’s $80 billion economy.

A new gold standard or fool’s gold?

If the Braves’ mixed-use development hasn’t been able to pay off Cobb’s much smaller $300 million subsidy, it casts serious doubt on Tampa’s ballpark-village strategy to cover its billion-dollar ask of taxpayers.

The evidence shows that stadiums aren’t capable of funding themselves, even with a mixed-use component. The public funding has to come from someone, and it’s local taxpayers who ultimately pick up the tab.

I believe the Rays’ plan and similar stadium developments being discussed in Kansas City, Chicago, Denver and elsewhere should be viewed as risky bets rather than sound public investments.

Read more of our stories about Florida.

The Conversation

J.C Bradbury is a faculty affiliate of KSU’s Bagwell Center for the Study of Markets and Economic Opportunity, which has previously provided him with a summer research support (last received in 2022).

ref. Sorry, Tampa Bay, mixed-use districts don’t reverse the dismal economics of sports venues – https://theconversation.com/sorry-tampa-bay-mixed-use-districts-dont-reverse-the-dismal-economics-of-sports-venues-280862

Reading shortcuts for children may be popular, but the research doesn’t back them up

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Holly Joseph, Professor of Language and Literacy Development, University of Reading

This year marks the UK’s National Year of Reading, which aims to rebuild good reading habits and enjoyment as child and adolescent reading declines year on year.

Reading enjoyment is at its lowest level for two decades, according to the National Literacy Trust’s annual survey. This matters because books expose children to a broader and richer vocabulary than everyday conversation, giving them access to words and language patterns they are less likely to hear.

Researchers do not point to a single cause for the decline, but studies suggest a mix of competing activities, weaker reading motivation and limited access to books that match children’s interests. This decline brings with it a sense of urgency, but also a risk because quick fixes often do not align with research.

We do have strong evidence about one crucial ingredient. Children need to learn how print represents speech sounds and practise decoding until word reading becomes accurate and fluent. That’s why phonics – the teaching of letter-sound relationships to help children sound out written words – is embedded in early literacy instruction. Phonics isn’t the whole of reading (comprehension is also key), but it is a necessary foundation. Importantly, it isn’t a shortcut: it takes time, practice and good teaching.

So where do shortcuts come in? Alongside the teaching methods we know help children to read, parents and teachers are often encouraged to try commercial products, online trends and social media campaigns that promise faster progress. But do they work? Here are five popular shortcuts and what the research suggests.

1. Bypassing phonics: an unhelpful avoidance strategy

When phonics isn’t working for a child, a common suggestion is an “alternative”: memorising whole words, relying on pictures or guessing from context cues (multi-cueing). However, when children are encouraged to bypass decoding words, they are not developing a reliable method for reading new words independently.

Reviews of intervention research indicate phonics training can improve decoding and word reading for poor readers. In other words, if a child is struggling with learning to read, the answer is usually more explicit teaching and guided practice in matching sounds to letters, not strategies that avoid it.

2. Coloured overlays: comfort is not the same as improved reading

Coloured overlays are transparent coloured sheets placed over a page and are often promoted as a way of reducing “visual stress” and making reading easier, especially for children with dyslexia. However, numerous studies and a systematic review have shown that the research does not support coloured lenses/overlays as a treatment for reading difficulty.

This doesn’t mean visual discomfort should be ignored. Headaches, glare sensitivity or unusual visual symptoms merit clinical attention. But it does mean overlays shouldn’t be treated as a primary intervention for decoding, fluency or comprehension, and there is no good evidence of meaningful improvements in reading outcomes for dyslexic children.

3. Turn on the subtitles: exposure isn’t the same as practice

Turning on subtitles while watching TV gives additional exposure to print that we might expect to improve reading. However, a recent study with year 2-3 children showed that six weeks of TV viewing with subtitles did not result in gains in reading fluency beyond the improvement seen in children generally.

One likely reason is that children who are not yet fluent readers often don’t look at the subtitles when they are watching TV enough for them to function as reading practice. Why would you look at the text at the bottom of the screen if you can’t make sense of it? But even when they do, “book language” includes rarer vocabulary and more complex grammar than everyday speech, so books still add something extra.

4. Specialist fonts: spacing can help, ‘dyslexia fonts’ less so

Dyslexia-friendly fonts are specially designed typefaces that aim to make letters easier to tell apart, often by changing their shape, weight or spacing. They are appealing because they’re easy to implement. But when studies measure reading objectively, specialist typefaces typically don’t deliver the improvements implied.

Research comparing specialist and standard typefaces (while controlling spacing between words and letters) tends to find little or no meaningful advantage for word or passage reading. Formatting such as larger print, more generous spacing and shorter line lengths can sometimes make text easier to navigate visually and therefore more comfortable to read.

But this should not be viewed as a substitute for instruction that builds decoding and fluency. And specialist typefaces have no impact on comprehension either – which, after all, is the ultimate goal of reading.

5. ‘Bionic’ reading: bold claims, weak evidence

Bionic reading (bolding the beginnings of words) has spread rapidly online with claims that bolding helps guide readers’ eyes to the relevant part of a word which “lets the brain centre complete the word”, which in turn increases reading speed. However, research doesn’t support these claims: bionic formatting does not reduce reading times compared with standard text in well-controlled experiments, nor does it improve comprehension. Some readers may prefer the format of bionic reading, but preference is not evidence of improved reading skill.

So what does work?

The key distinction is between changes that make reading feel easier and changes that make reading better. Adjustments such as font, spacing or subtitles may support access or enjoyment for some children, but they don’t replace the slow and necessary work of building fluent word reading.

For children struggling with decoding or reading accuracy, we have known what works best for many years now. Teach decoding explicitly, practise it in texts that match what’s been taught, build fluency with short frequent practice, and teach spelling alongside reading. And if progress is slow, increase the dose (more time, more guidance) rather than looking to alternative methods.

This is a particularly difficult message for parents of children with dyslexia or other reading difficulties, who desperately want to help their child with what they find hardest. But it is crucial that we don’t promote myths or interventions that are not backed up by evidence.

As a rule of thumb, if it seems too good to be true, it most likely is. Learning to read in English is really hard and it takes time. As much as we might wish otherwise, there’s no quick fix.

The Conversation

Holly Joseph 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. Reading shortcuts for children may be popular, but the research doesn’t back them up – https://theconversation.com/reading-shortcuts-for-children-may-be-popular-but-the-research-doesnt-back-them-up-280609

Our unsung hero of science: Friedrich Miescher, the man who discovered DNA

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kersten Hall, Author and Honorary Fellow, Centre for History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds

Wellcome Collection via Wikimedia, CC BY-NC

Whether through TV crime dramas or cinema blockbusters about dinosaur theme parks, DNA is a staple of modern popular culture – its double-helix structure one of science’s most iconic visualisations.

Yet remarkably, the young Swiss scientist who discovered DNA in the first place is largely forgotten.

Born in Basel in 1844, Friedrich Miescher only began his career as a researcher after developing a hearing impairment that forced him to shelve plans to be a doctor like his father. Working in the medieval castle that overlooks the old German town of Tübingen, Miescher’s aim was a grand one – to uncover the chemical nature of life itself.

But his working environment was rather different to today’s molecular biology laboratories. The University of Tübingen’s conversion of the castle kitchens into laboratories appears to have involved little more than swapping pots and pans for beakers and alembics used for distillation.

Working in what he likened to the laboratory of a medieval alchemist, the first stage of Miescher’s research was the unsavoury task of scraping pus from discarded surgical bandages, obtained from the local hospital.

The laboratory where Miescher isolated nuclein
The laboratory where Miescher isolated nuclein was located in the vaults of an old castle in Tübingen.
Paul Sinner via Wikimedia

Pus offered him a rich source of white blood cells, which were much easier to isolate and prepare than cells from solid human tissue. So, they were particularly well suited for analysing what molecules human cells are made of.

Over the winter of 1868-9, Miescher discovered a novel cellular substance with properties unlike anything else known at that time. Its chemical behaviour was significantly different to proteins, which were by then understood to be key structural and functional components of cells.

Unlike proteins, Miescher’s substance was rich in the element phosphorus. Observing that it was found almost exclusively within each cell’s nucleus, he called it “nuclein” – a term that was largely retained within its modern name of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA.

Little was known about the functions of the cell’s nucleus at the time, although several biologists suspected it to be central to cell growth and division. Miescher was convinced that nuclein must be closely involved in these processes.

He announced the discovery of DNA in 1871 in a paper titled On the Chemical Composition of Pus Cells. While it hardly sounded (or indeed read) like a page-turner, his studies of pus would prove a landmark moment in the history of science.

Nearly a century later, it led to the Nobel-winning discovery of DNA’s double-helix structure. The date of that landmark paper by James Watson and Francis Crick is now marked each year on April 25 as DNA Day. Yet Miescher’s contribution is largely unacknowledged.

From pus to salmon

The Swiss scientist’s move back to his home town in 1871 brought him a rich new source of nuclein that meant no longer having to scrape pus from old bandages.

Each year, salmon swim from the North Sea to their breeding grounds in the upper Rhine river, where the city of Basel is located. In preparation for mating, the male salmon’s testes grow massively and become laden with DNA.

Rising in the dark and cold of a winter morning, Miescher would walk down to the banks of the Rhine to catch salmon, then extract their DNA in his laboratory. This image gave us the title of our biography of Miescher, The Dawn Fisherman, to be published in June 2026.


Frank Malina beside a rocket

This series is dedicated to lesser-known, highly influential scientists who have had a powerful influence on the careers and research paths of many others, including the authors of these articles.


The intensity with which Miescher carried out his research was formidable. One of his students recalled that, on the day of Miescher’s wedding, friends had to drag him from his lab bench to attend the church.

His commitments grew. As well as researching Rhine salmon for the local fishing industry, Miescher worked for the Swiss government to improve the diets of prison inmates. And after founding Basel’s first institute of anatomy and physiology in 1885, there were the growing administrative burdens of being its director.

All these commitments brought a growing sense of frustration that he was spending less time on DNA. Looking to classical mythology for images of futility and despair, Miescher compared himself to rolling the boulder of Sisyphus up the mountain.

These strains took their toll on his health. In 1890, having contracted tuberculosis, he became a resident at a sanatorium in the alpine resort of Davos.

A second great insight

But during the final years of his life there, Miescher had his second great insight. Citing Charles Darwin’s speculations about the mechanism of heredity, Miescher proposed that the variation in biological traits of all living organisms might arise through variation in the physical structure of a large molecule – which he thought was most likely to be a protein.

Limited by the concepts and methods of his time, Miescher did not make the connection that nuclein (DNA) was, in fact, this very molecule.

He died in 1895 aged 51, burdened by a painful sense of failure and opportunities missed. “I will never know the happiness that belongs to the man who has lived up to their station in a harmonious way to the satisfaction of themselves and others,” Miescher wrote.

But his former mentor, the distinguished physiologist Carl Ludwig (1816-1895), was more confident that the achievements of his protégé would one day be recognised. “However often the cell will be studied and examined during the centuries to come,” he assured Miescher as he lay in the Davos sanatorium, “the grateful descendants will remember you as the ground-breaking researcher”.

Ludwig’s prediction turned out to be only partly accurate. DNA-based technologies have certainly transformed what we understand about life and disease. Yet Miescher is scarcely acknowledged as the scientist whose pioneering work led to them.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Our unsung hero of science: Friedrich Miescher, the man who discovered DNA – https://theconversation.com/our-unsung-hero-of-science-friedrich-miescher-the-man-who-discovered-dna-281202

Five health conditions mothers can develop after giving birth

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Taylor, Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University

Postpartum pre-eclampsia can affect as many as 27% of mums. antoniodiaz/ Shutterstock

During pregnancy, a mother’s body undergoes vast structural and functional changes. But what many might not know is that the after-effects of these changes can last long after giving birth – and can even result in the development of new health conditions.

Here are just a few of the common conditions a mother can develop after giving birth:

1. Gallstones

One common condition that arises after pregnancy is gallstones. Approximately 12% of women are affected.

Gallstones are hard deposits commonly made of cholesterol that form in the gallbladder (an organ that releases bile to help the body digest fats). If these stones leave the gallbladder and become stuck in the ducts connecting the gallbladder and intestines, they can cause intense, sharp pain under the ribs (usually on the right-hand side) which may radiate into the back and shoulder. Gallstones can also cause vomiting and darkened urine.

During pregnancy, a mother’s gastrointestinal system slows down so that as many nutrients as possible can be delivered to the developing baby.

This gastrointestinal slowdown also slows bile leaving the gallbladder. Combined with the increase in cholesterol that happens in order to support foetal tissue development, this creates the perfect environment for gallstones to form.

But after giving birth, digestive motility increases again. This can sometimes force any stones that have formed to be flushed out the gallbladder.

Stones may need to be dissolved or the gallbladder removed in cases of severe symptoms.

2. Vision changes

The eyes can also be affected after pregnancy. The most common issues are blurry vision and dry eyes. These problems are caused by hormonal changes in the immediate period after delivery – namely the sharp drop in the hormones oestrogen and progesterone.

During pregnancy, changing oestrogen and progesterone levels cause fluid retention. This causes many tissues to swell – including the eyes. It also causes the eyes to gradually change shape.

But when hormones levels return to normal after pregnancy, any visual changes that have occurred can become more noticeable. Usually, these self-resolve – though for some the vision changes can remain as near- and far-sightedness.

In very rare cases, sight loss can even occur post-pregnancy – something which recently happened to one British mum. This was probably caused by optic neuritis, a condition where the protective layer of the optic nerve is attacked by the body’s own immune system.

During pregnancy, the maternal immune system is modified so it doesn’t attack and reject the foetus. But once the baby is born, mum’s immune system goes back to its pre-pregnancy state. In some, this results in the immune system over-reacting and attacking its own tissues.

Optic neuritis can be treated using corticosteroids which can restore vision. But in this mum’s recent case, these didn’t work.

She ended up having a plasma exchange – a procedure where the body’s plasma (the blood’s liquid component which carries hormones, nutrients and blood cells) is removed and replaced with donor plasma. Once she recieved the new plasma, her vision was mostly restored.

3. Postpartum thyroiditis

Another condition affecting around 10% of postpartum mums is postpartum thyroiditis. In mums with diabetes, as many as 20% may be affected.

This condition affects the thyroid. This gland produces hormones that help control metabolism, growth, energy levels and development. The thyroid is affected by the immune system’s postpartum rebound.

A digital drawing depicting the thyroid gland, which is located in the neck.
The thyroid gland controls many important processes.
Explode/ Shutterstock

Postpartum thyroiditis first causes the thyroid to become overactive (hyperthyroidism), leading to weight loss, anxiety, heat intolerance and tremors due to the thyroid hormones’ overstimulating effect on the nervous system.

This is then followed by underactivity (hypothyroidism) where mothers feel cold, low mood and tiredness.

The reason the thyroid is initially overactive is because it releases the hormonal stores it has built up. Once these stores are depleted, it’s function is reduced.

Both conditions can be treated with prescription drugs. Many mums can stop taking these after a few months, once inflammation in the thyroid has decreased.

4. Postpartum pre-eclampsia

One of the more life-threatening post-pregnancy conditions is postpartum pre-eclampsia. This condition can affect as many as 27% of mums and is characterised by high blood pressure after birth. It can happen anytime from hours after birth to six weeks after delivery.

For many, symptoms are mild and may even be unnoticed. But it can also present as severe headaches, shortness of breath, abdominal pain and vision changes, which represent the more severe symptoms.

The condition can happen both in mums who had pre-eclampsia during pregnancy and those that didn’t. If left untreated, it can lead to brain damage, stroke or even death.

Postpartum pre-eclampsia can be effectively managed with antihypertensive medications, which lower your blood pressure.

5. Blood clots

Pulmonary embolism (a blood clot in a major artery in the lungs) is a rare but dangerous postpartum condition. It’s one of the leading overall causes of maternal death and has a sixty-fold increase in risk compared to non-pregnant women.

This condition tends to present up to six weeks after birth. It causes shortness of breath, heart palpitations and potentially coughing up blood.

During and after pregnancy, a mother’s body is in a “hyperclotting” state to reduce blood loss after delivery. This hyperclotting state can subsequently cause blood clots to form elsewhere in the body, such as veins in the legs. These clots can become dislodged, travelling to the major arteries in the lungs and blocking them.

Clotting risk can be managed with various therapies, such as with injectable anti-coagulant drugs.

Pregnancy makes large-scale changes to a mother’s body. But as soon as the baby is delivered, these changes usually reverse back to baseline – often quicker than they happened during pregnancy. This sometimes means the body fails to adapt, leading to various health conditions.

If you’re a mother who has recently given birth and feel something isn’t right, it’s best to see your GP.

The Conversation

Adam Taylor 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. Five health conditions mothers can develop after giving birth – https://theconversation.com/five-health-conditions-mothers-can-develop-after-giving-birth-280183

Microplastics have been found to interact with the gut microbiome – here’s what health effects they might have

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nick Ilott, Senior Researcher and Lead Bioinformatician, The Oxford Centre for Microbiome Studies, University of Oxford

Microplastics have increasingly been linked to a range of health harms. SIVStockStudio/ Shutterstock

Through the air we breathe and the food we eat, we can’t help but inhale and ingest tiny bits of plastic every day.

These microplastics, as they’re known, have been found in many parts of the human body – including the lungs, placenta and blood vessels. Research has even linked the presence of microplastics to cardiovascular disease and poor health in humans.

Evidence also shows that microplastics can interact with the gut microbiome – and their presence could contribute to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Microplastics are microscopic fragments of plastic that are smaller than 5mm long (and as small as 0.001mm) – and they’re everywhere. Some microplastics are created intentionally, glitter and confetti being obvious everyday examples. Others are created when larger plastic items are worn down (such as when plastic pollution in the ocean or environment is eroded).

Nevertheless, whether they’re shed from plastic chopping boards, in our drinking water or inadvertently added to processed food products, we could consequently be consuming up to 5g every week.

However, we don’t currently know the exact quantities of microplastics a single person may have in their body at any one time. Getting precise measurements of microplastics in human samples can be difficult. This is because other small fragments (such as some fats) in bodily samples can look like plastic to scientific instruments.

While scientists are sure that we’re eating microplastics, there’s also still some debate around their ability to enter our bloodstream and build up in body tissues.

Nevertheless, the fact that we consume them at all is enough for microplastics to meet our metabolic organ – the gut microbiome. Current research suggests that these encounters can reduce the good bacteria in our gut to contribute to IBD.

Microplastics and gut health

Our gut is home to trillions of microorganisms – known as the gut microbiome. Some 500 to 1,000 different microbial species work together in harmony to keep our gut healthy.

A major function of the microbiome is to take what we eat, chew it up and spit out breakdown products. These products are called metabolites and are critical for gut health.

A digital drawing depicting some of the many microbes found in the gut microbiome.
The gut microbiome plays an integral role in health.
Shobujsk/ Shutterstock

A well-studied group of metabolites are short-chain fatty acids. Short-chain fatty acids garnered attention around a decade ago, when they were found to be produced by good gut bacteria and could help prevent IBD.

IBD is an increasingly common disease, affecting around one in every 123 people in the UK. It can cause severe abdominal pain, diarrhoea, weight loss and fatigue.

One of the gut’s key short-chain fatty acids is butyrate, which is produced by bacteria when they break down dietary fibre. Butyrate has been found to be crucial for gut health, helping to boost immunity and preserve the gut barrier. However, if the gut microbiome is disturbed, microbes that produce butyrate are reduced and gut health is jeopardised.

The gut microbiome faces many challenges that now includes plastic pollutants.

Evidence for how microplastics influence the microbiome and gut health in humans is presently scarce, largely due to the previously mentioned difficulty in measuring microplastics in human samples. But work in mouse models has been more revealing, allowing us to observe the consequences of various types of microplastics in the gut.

A recently published study in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, showed that giving mice a group of polystyrene microplastics of various sizes makes the gut vulnerable to IBD. This happens because key members of the microbiome are reduced, stopping the production of butyrate and increasing the severity of inflammation.

Clearly microplastics are capable of inducing poor gut health. However, whether animal studies accurately capture levels of microplastics found in human tissues remains to be completely understood – something that will hopefully become possible with technological advances. It’s also still not clear exactly how microplastics do this.

Even with bans on intentionally produced microplastics, we still have to fight against those that are produced through wear and tear of plastic-containing materials.

What if we could use our bacteria to help us in this battle? There is some tantalising evidence that some bacteria found in human guts are capable of breaking down some types of microplastics. Although we don’t yet know if this breakdown happens in the gut (or whether it’s a good thing), there is a real, albeit distant, possibility that in collaboration with our microbiome we might be able to fend off some of the ill effects of microplastics.

With ever-growing technological advances, it is plausible that we could, in the future, harness the power of the microbiome to dispose of plastics outside, and inside, our guts.

The Conversation

Nick Ilott receives funding from The Kennedy Trust for Rheumatology Research, The Wellcome Trust, Guts UK, PSC Support and has received funding from Roche for a PhD project jointly with funding from the BBSRC as part of an iCASE DTP.

ref. Microplastics have been found to interact with the gut microbiome – here’s what health effects they might have – https://theconversation.com/microplastics-have-been-found-to-interact-with-the-gut-microbiome-heres-what-health-effects-they-might-have-279372

Middle East conflict: how the US and Iran could step back from the brink

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David J. Galbreath, Professor of War and Technology, University of Bath

Donald Trump’s deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face a renewal of American bombardment was due to expire this week, but was extended at the last moment, this time with no defined time limit. But the risk of renewed escalation remains real, as both sides continue to block traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important – and contested – waterways..

Yet, despite hardline rhetoric on both sides, diplomacy has not collapsed. In fact, several plausible off‑ramps exist that could allow Washington and Tehran to cool tensions without either side appearing to capitulate.

Research in conflict resolution suggests that warring parties will be more likely to come to an agreement when both sides can take away what they consider a winning result. Often, this comes in trade-offs between what you are willing to give away in order to gain elsewhere. Nevertheless, it’s axiomatic in conflict resolution that it’s much easier to start a war than to stop it.

The most viable pathway to a settlement remains a reset of the nuclear file broadly along the lines of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), albeit under a new political brand.

Iranian officials have proposed a staged arrangement that would cap uranium enrichment at 3.67%, well below the level needed for a nuclear weapon. Such an arrangement would return intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency inspections with the prospect of ultimately transferring stocks of higher‑enriched uranium out of the country in exchange for phased sanctions relief.

This would not represent a fundamental concession by Tehran. These were the parameters it accepted 11 years ago under the deal brokered by Barack Obama. But it would significantly lengthen Iran’s nuclear “breakout time” (the time it takes to produce enough weapons-grade uranium). It would also restore transparency that has been steadily eroded since the first Trump administration pulled out of the JCPOA in 2018.

For Washington, such a deal would fall short of longstanding demands for “zero enrichment” – but that position has so far proved unattainable. Even US officials now appear more focused on verifiable constraints than absolute prohibitions, understanding that China recognises the right to enrich uranium as a matter of sovereignty.

A capped and monitored programme would allow the US president to claim that Iran had been forced back under strict controls, while avoiding a further costly regional war. The irony is that this would largely put Iran back into an agreement that Obama agreed and which Trump, with considerable bluster, withdrew from in 2018. This appears to be a stumbling block for the US president.

A second and related off‑ramp concerns the duration rather than the existence of enrichment limits. Recent talks have stalled over US demands for a 20‑year moratorium on enrichment, which Iran has countered with proposals closer to five years. A compromise, such as a seven to ten-year limit with built‑in reviews, would give both sides something to sell domestically. It would represent long‑term risk reduction for Washington and for Tehran it would be a reaffirmation of Iran’s right to a nuclear future.

Time‑limited arrangements have precedent in arms control. They are known as confidence and security building measures and are often used in conflict prevention and resolution to build trust between parties while working towards a resolution. And they may be more politically durable than maximalist demands that are more likely to collapse as political conditions change.

Beyond the nuclear issue, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as Iran’s most potent source of leverage. Roughly one-fifth of global oil passes through the waterway, and even limited disruption has sent energy prices climbing this year. Former Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev – a close ally of Vladimir Putin – recently described the strait as Iran’s “real nuclear weapon”. It’s a comment that captures how central maritime pressure has become to Tehran’s strategy.

An agreement guaranteeing the strait’s unconditional reopening without harassment, tolls, or threats, would provide immediate economic relief worldwide and give Washington a highly visible diplomatic win.

But Gulf states have expressed concern that such a bargain could end up managing rather than dismantling Iran’s leverage. It would effectively normalise – rather than remove – Iran’s ability to threaten shipping during crises.

For neighbouring countries, stabilisation without broader de‑escalation risks entrenching a dangerous precedent. This makes it all the more important that any Hormuz‑focused deal be tied to wider commitments on restraint and established confidence-building measures.

Lowering the stakes

Process matters as much as substance. Increasingly, mediators such as Pakistan, Oman and China appear to favour “sequenced de‑escalation”. This is where limited reciprocal steps, including mutual adherence to ceasefire agreements, shipping guarantees and relaxation of both sides’ maritime blockades, are locked in before negotiations widen to sanctions relief and regional security.

This approach lowers the political stakes of any single concession and reduces the risk that talks collapse under the weight of unresolved disputes. However, this scenario would make it harder for the US administration to define the agreement as a victory.

Similarly, there is the question of political narrative. The US president has vacillated between threats of overwhelming force and signals of fatigue with the conflict. This suggests he has a strong desire for an exit that can be framed as victory.

A narrowly defined agreement that could be rebranded, front‑loaded with Iranian compliance and heavy on enforcement language may prove more acceptable than a comprehensive treaty – even if its substance closely resembles older Obama-era frameworks.

The problem is the Trump administration’s failure to maintain a consistent narrative of what it wants from Iran. This presents a challenge to the established research on conflict resolution. The US president, in particular, has made understanding the US position difficult. In years to come, this crisis may be a useful case study when it comes to exploring conflict resolution theory. But, right now, it makes a settlement very hard to envisage.

The Conversation

David J. Galbreath has received funding from the UKRI.

ref. Middle East conflict: how the US and Iran could step back from the brink – https://theconversation.com/middle-east-conflict-how-the-us-and-iran-could-step-back-from-the-brink-281203

Understanding incel culture – and how schools can address it

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Smith, Lecturer, School of Applied Social Studies, Robert Gordon University

New Africa/Shutterstock

Incels – involuntary celibates – believe they have been unconditionally excluded from the dating market and are doomed to remain virgins. This has negative implications for their mood and self-esteem, as well as the women and girls they grow to resent.

For this reason, schools in England are now required to address incel communities, among other sources of online misogyny, in relationships, sex and health education. This is a challenging task when many teachers are already overstretched, and schools are increasingly expected to deal with problems that begin beyond the school gates.

Addressing gender based discrimination and violence requires experts who are well prepared and able to support discussion around these sensitive topics in a manner that does not further stigmatise young people.

Many young people worry about falling behind their peers socially and sexually. Sociological research shows this pressure is observable from high school onward, with pupils mocking each other if they do not appear sufficiently experienced or interested. Survey data finds inexperienced adults are seen as less desirable, even by those who share their inexperience.

Virginity and masculinity

Research in the US found that women were more likely to see their virginity as something to be shared with the right person, while men are more likely to see it as a source of shame to be opportunistically cast off. These sentiments reflect the traditional view of virginity in men as a sign of inadequacy.

Incels take this perception to the extreme, positioning themselves at the bottom of a natural male hierarchy because of women’s supposedly hardwired preferences for alpha males.

This is in contrast to other parts of the manosphere, populated by masculinity influencers. They start from a similar premise – that dating is unfair – but teach followers how to “game” the system. This may be through pseudoscience, body modification, coercion, dehumanisation and dominance.

Incels see their struggle to fit in with adulthood as something inflicted upon them by a combination of biology and social engineering. They envision the same sexual marketplace as the likes of Andrew Tate, but feel unable to compete in it. This perceived helplessness acts as a justification for their grievances. In this way, they outsource their sexual development, positioning women as gatekeepers to respectability and misogyny as transgressive rebellion.

Crucially, incels’ sense of exclusion goes beyond sexuality. An illustration of this was found in research which suggested that regional inequality is a predictor of incel activity on social media. In other words, economically unequal environments are associated with more incel sentiments. If young men can see “the good life”, but feel blocked from achieving it and their position at the bottom of a hierarchy is inescapable, it can make them feel trying is pointless.

It may seem counterintuitive that incels gravitate towards a philosophy that tells them their life cannot get any better. But this fatalistic worldview, that offers secret knowledge to explain romantic alienation as a scientific inevitability, offers temporary comfort. It absolves responsibility.

Incels often see themselves as rivals in a misery economy, where the goal is to be the most “trucel”: the person with the odds stacked most against them, who therefore has the best reason to be a virgin. But over time, the permanency of their position can become overwhelming as the sadness turns to rage. Most incels confine their anger to messageboards. But in extreme cases incel beliefs have inspired real-world violence including harassment, stalking and even acts of murder.

Research on the influence of “manfluencers” and incel culture in schools suggests that these online cultures do not remain confined to the internet. They spill into classrooms, shaping boys’ attitudes towards girls and women teachers. They normalise sexist behaviour, placing yet more responsibility on teachers to deal with the consequences. One outcome is that the Department for Education has seen a rising number of Prevent referrals related to inceldom.

Two boys in a school corridor.
Incel attitudes can spill into the classroom, affecting male teens’ relationships with their female peers and teachers.
MAYA LAB/Shutterstock

Social media and video sharing platforms play a large role in both spreading and profiting from this material, so are being increasingly targeted by regulators such as Ofcom. This may well become a catalyst for stricter digital governance.

But at a local level, a meaningful response to these issues must include expanded access to mental health support. Young people also need healthier outlets, both on and offline, for openness and connection.

In schools, education on rejection, empathy, relationship dynamics, self-worth and social skills can play a vital role here. It requires a whole-school approach in which teachers are themselves supported and equipped to respond. A whole-school approach should also mean that individual staff are not left to carry the burden.

This begins with the identification of whole school guiding principles for education interventions. Some schools are supporting all staff to recognise and respond to incel terminology, to recognise the eco-system and appeal of influencers. Specific workshops and lesson plans are also being developed and tested.

Schools and teachers should not be left to tackle this issue alone. Parents are the first port of call for safeguarding young people and they require education and support in recognising and challenging harmful online influences at home.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Understanding incel culture – and how schools can address it – https://theconversation.com/understanding-incel-culture-and-how-schools-can-address-it-272566

US-Iran failed first round of talks in Pakistan: where did it all go wrong?

Source: The Conversation – France – By Marwan Sinaceur, Professor of Organizational Behavior, ESSEC

Empirical research in the behavioural sciences shows that the Trump administration has not, to date, adopted an efficient strategy to negotiate with Iran. Negotiations between the US and Iran on April 11-12 in Islamabad, Pakistan were deemed the last attempt at ending a war that’s on the verge of causing a global economic crisis.

To explain why the first round of negotiations between the US and Iran failed, US Vice President Vance said Iran did not agree to terms about its nuclear efforts and that the US gave Tehran its “final and best offer”. Vance put an end to the 21-hour long talks and the US delegation made a swift exit after it had stayed less than 24 hours in the country.

The US’s “final and best offer” has shown a deep misunderstanding of the dynamics and the psychology of negotiations. It would be laughable if world peace, looming world hunger, and a catastrophic economic crisis weren’t at stake.

What led to the breakdown in talks?

Contrary to what Vance claimed, putting an offer in the early stage of a negotiation is quite counter-productive to solving a conflict.

Empirical research on negotiations demonstrates that the timing of offers is critical. Making an early offer in negotiations decreases information exchange between negotiators and increases the competitive dimension of negotiations.

It often escalates into a war of positions where negotiators mostly seek to defend and argue about their positions, thus becoming cognitively rigid rather than trying to understand what drives the other party’s behaviour. In contrast, an offer in the later stages of negotiations enables everyone to first understand the underlying (unpublicised) interests, motivations, needs and concerns of the different parties.

When an offer is made later rather than earlier, negotiators have more leeway to exchange information and explore creative solutions that meet the different parties’ underlying interests; they are less likely to engage in positional, competitive bargaining early in the process (which then colours the entire subsequent interaction). What this means in plain terms is a key measure of negotiators’ effectiveness is their ability to seek information and ask questions rather than solely making claims.

Even when both parties are willing to reach painful compromises, a lot of time is required to explore underlying interests, discuss thorny issues, disclose sensitive information, and look for solutions that are mutually acceptable. In fact, research has shown that discussing multiple simultaneous offers, that is, discussing several potential scenarios and options for compromise at the same time, is more efficient than making a single unilateral offer.

Contrary to what the US Vice President claimed, the first offer or idea one devises is rarely the best offer or idea for reaching a compromise and solving a conflict as negotiators are often subject to biased information search and biased information processing (e.g., they interpret information incorrectly and fail to accurately understand the other party’s interests and preferences). This is even more the case when the conflict is not only about interests, but also about sacred values. In this case, offering concessions on values and symbols (e.g., symbolic recognition of the other party) is effective in making the other concede in return. For example, the Trump administration seems to misunderstand the importance of national pride and symbolic recognition in the uranium enrichment issue.

Timing is everything

Findings on negotiations additionally show that negotiators are not prone to making concessions early in negotiations. Putting an offer on the table at a early stage means putting an offer before the other party is ready to make concessions. Indeed, people are more likely to make concessions at the end rather than at the beginning of negotiations. Two reasons may explain that. First, at the beginning, there is little trust.

It takes time to build trust and at the beginning the parties interpret every move from the other side through the lens of the distrust they experience themselves. For example, people reject an offer that comes from the other side just because it comes from the other side: they evaluate an offer based on who makes it, regardless of how interesting it is intrinsically; this phenomenon characterises negotiation and has been termed reactive devaluation. This is because we construe that another person’s offer must be solely driven by their interests, and we construe our interests as antagonistic to theirs.

Second, the “psychological cost” of walking away from a negotiation evolves over time.

At the beginning of a negotiation, walking away and reaching an impasse bears little psychological cost because little energy or effort have been invested whereas at the end of a negotiation, walking away and reaching an impasse is far more costly: an impasse would mean that all the time spent was for nothing. This is an application of a bias that is well-known by psychologists, namely escalation of commitment. The more (the less) we invest time and pursue a certain course of action, the more (the less) we want it to succeed.

In fact, tactics that are used to exert pressure and make the other yield are more effective at the end rather than at the beginning of negotiations. For example, making a threat late in the process is much more effective than making a threat early in the process. Similarly, expressing anger at the other late in the process is much more effective than expressing anger early. In general, explicitly aggressive moves are less effective early and more effective late. The way aggressive tactics are perceived varies over time: they convey too much negative intentions at the opening and are deemed more acceptable once a relationship is built. Even though unpredictability can be effective, it is still better to start expressing positiveness earlier in the negotiation so that negotiators create positive impressions first.

Thus, results from empirical research converge to demonstrate that negotiation is a game with different phases or sequences: open discussions first; bargaining at the end. Using aggressive tactics early in negotiations makes finding out about interests and uncovering cooperative solutions very unlikely. The ability not to close one’s mind too early in the process and keep things open throughout as much as possible is critical. This is why patience is key in negotiations.

Managing the timing dimension in negotiations is clearly essential for success. The same behaviour put at the end rather than at the beginning of negotiations will yield completely different results.

In negotiations, it’s often a question of when to make a move rather than whether to make a move.

In this way, empirical research on negotiations suggests that negotiation is like a dance. One needs to proceed by trial and error before constructing compromises that are mutually acceptable. It takes time to understand someone else and build a relationship – exactly as is the case in a romantic relationship.

Needless to say, the aforementioned research has mostly been published in US academic journals dedicated to the behavioural sciences. It is well known to negotiation scholars and experts in the US.

Dissecting the telltale signs of amateurism

Vance’s position that the US gave Iran its “final and best offer” was, thus, that of an amateur. This is all the more apparent given that negotiations between the US and Iran are quite complex and include multiple issues: reopening the strait of Ormuz, implementation of steps to limit and control Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles, access to a civil nuclear program, the lifting of economic sanctions, guarantees that war will not resume, etc.

Wanting to reach an agreement on such difficult issues in such little time denoted a lack of negotiation experience that was simply astonishing.

Negotiations that led to an agreement with Iran on nuclear matters under the Obama administration took more than 20 months, whereas those led by Vance in Pakistan earlier this month took 21 hours.

Experts like Federica Mogherini who was in charge of negotiations with Iran on behalf of the European Union, have underscored the Trump delegates’ substantial lack of knowledge and understanding of the technical aspects of negotiating.

In this respect, the failure of the US versus Iran talks in Pakistan was in no way surprising. It was fully consistent with, and predicted by, empirical research on the psychology of negotiation.

Making an early offer is very ineffective in solving conflict. For instance, the very same error explained why negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians failed in Camp David in 2000, even though the two parties wanted to reach a compromise at that time – the consequences of this failure have been catastrophic. As a close observer recalled, the parties made their initial offers early in the negotiation process, well before “neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians had been prepared to fully own up to the fears and needs of the other”.

All of this has denoted a major flaw by the Trump administration in how to handle negotiations with Iranians (among others) since the start of the war till now. Negotiating is not about imposing terms unilaterally on the other party. Nor is it about making the other party capitulate and accept an unconditional surrender. That strategy works in negotiations where there is only one variable to negotiate upon (typically, a competitive issue such as price), or when you undoubtedly are in a position of power – as would be the case if you were a wealthy real estate developer in New York city. But that strategy does not work in negotiations where there are multiple variables to negotiate upon and where meeting complex, underlying interests and discovering creative solutions is necessary to achieve a good deal, or when the balance of power is uncertain.

To paraphrase yet another Republican US President Eisenhower, negotiation is:

“The art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.”

On all counts, what happened between the US and Iranian delegations on April 11-12 in Pakistan did not look like real negotiations.


A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!


The Conversation

Marwan SINACEUR a reçu des financements de ESSEC Research Center, Fondation ESSEC, Fondation INSEAD, Stanford University.

ref. US-Iran failed first round of talks in Pakistan: where did it all go wrong? – https://theconversation.com/us-iran-failed-first-round-of-talks-in-pakistan-where-did-it-all-go-wrong-281185