La importancia de las asociaciones de pacientes con enfermedades raras

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Josep Solves, Profesor, Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera

Tener una enfermedad poco frecuente o cuidar de una persona con una de estas patologías es un reto enorme. Porque, a los desafíos y el sufrimiento habituales de toda enfermedad, se unen el desconocimiento, la incertidumbre y, con demasiada frecuencia, el estigma social de estas enfermedades, tan distintas, la mayoría de las veces, a las dolencias comunes. Son necesarios mucho coraje y compromiso para afrontarlas y toda ayuda es siempre poca.

Probablemente, la necesidad de afrontar todos esos retos junto con otras personas y familias que viven una situación similar, la necesidad de luchar juntos para ser más fuertes, explica que las asociaciones de pacientes con enfermedades raras jueguen desde hace tiempo un papel clave. De hecho, el movimiento asociativo de las personas con enfermedades raras se ha convertido, posiblemente, en su apoyo más eficaz y constante. Sin esas asociaciones, sin ese movimiento social, la vida de los pacientes y sus familias hubiera sido, y sería ahora, mucho peor.

No olvidemos que no es ni mucho menos un colectivo marginal: 3 millones de personas en España, 30 en Europa y 300 en el mundo sufren enfermedades raras.

En un contexto en el que las administraciones y las empresas farmacéuticas han atendido solo en parte las necesidades de este colectivo, únicamente las asociaciones han sido capaces de acompañar, informar, apoyar y consolar con la proximidad y la empatía suficientes a los pacientes y sus familias.

En parte, es lógico, porque las forman los propios pacientes y sus familias, unidos en la lucha común, real y apegada al terreno de lo cotidiano, contra la enfermedad y todo lo que ella implica.

Información de primera mano y “papeleo”

Las asociaciones de pacientes con enfermedades poco frecuentes no solo entran en escena cuando existe un diagnóstico. A veces aparecen cuando ese diagnóstico no es sino una aspiración perentoria y su búsqueda desesperada se alarga mucho más de lo soportable. En España, por ejemplo, existe desde hace muchos años una asociación de personas que todavía no saben qué enfermedad tienen.

En un primer momento, son las asociaciones las que se acercan a los pacientes y a las familias para darles la primera información y asesoramiento sobre sus derechos y para ayudarles a realizar –cuando no para gestionar ellas mismas–, los trámites que se han de seguir para hacerlos efectivos. Y, en la mayoría de los casos, son las que atienden su malestar psicológico y emocional.

Necesidades administrativas y estigma

Además, en ocasiones proporcionan servicios que las administraciones no cubren suficientemente, como la fisioterapia y la rehabilitación. Lo que es más, hay casos en los que han ayudado económicamente a las familias a enfrentarse al enorme gasto que estas enfermedades suelen implicar.

Así las cosas, estas asociaciones llevan décadas reivindicando que las administraciones cubran las enormes y muy complejas necesidades que conllevan las patologías poco frecuentes y se atiendan sus derechos. Además, reivindican que se conozcan mejor socialmente para evitar así el estigma de su “rareza” y el riesgo de exclusión social que conlleva.

Apoyo insustituible de la investigación

Las asociaciones también han sido, y son, un acicate incuestionable para que las enfermedades minoritarias se investiguen más y mejor desde las ciencias biomédicas y sociales. Estos colectivos se han acercado a los investigadores y han cambiado por completo la percepción que estos tenían de las enfermedades y de sus pacientes porque les han ayudado a comprender que su trabajo diario puede curar o mejorar la calidad de vida de personas reales, con nombres y rostros concretos.

Incluso ellas mismas se han implicado mucho en la consecución de fondos con los que se han desarrollado no pocas de las investigaciones de los últimos años en este ámbito.

En parte gracias a su fortaleza, en España contamos hoy con investigadores y con centros y consorcios de investigación, como el CIBERER o la red RER-CSIC, de primer nivel.

En Europa, entidades como EURORDIS –que reúne a más de 1 000 organizaciones de pacientes en 77 países en Europa, pero también en otros continentes–, FEDER en España –que representa a más de 400 entidades– o ALIBER –con 700 organizaciones de 19 países de Iberoamérica– se han convertido en redes empoderadas de reivindicación y defensa, soporte, información, intermediación y refuerzo de las familias, las administraciones, la sociedad y la ciencia.

Estas iniciativas son la demostración tangible de que el trabajo conjunto, el esfuerzo colectivo y la solidaridad pueden mejorar sustancialmente la calidad de vida de las personas.

The Conversation

Josep Solves es vicepresidente de ALBA, Asociación para la Ayuda a Personas con Albinismo

Los contenidos de esta publicación y las opiniones expresadas son exclusivamente las del autor y este documento no debe considerar que representa una posición oficial del CSIC ni compromete al CSIC en ninguna responsabilidad de cualquier tipo.

ref. La importancia de las asociaciones de pacientes con enfermedades raras – https://theconversation.com/la-importancia-de-las-asociaciones-de-pacientes-con-enfermedades-raras-280160

Fondos Next Generation Europa: una oportunidad de oro para consolidar el sector industrial en España

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Gabriel Lozano Reina, Profesor del Departamento de Organización de Empresas y Finanzas, Universidad de Murcia

Un cartel anuncia los fondos Next Generation de la UE en la sede de la Comisión Europea en Bruselas. Artem Avetisyan/Shutterstock

Cuando la Unión Europea aprobó los fondos Next Generation EU (NGEU), en 2020, muchos los interpretaron como una respuesta excepcional a la crisis provocada por la pandemia. Sin embargo, su alcance ha ido mucho más allá de una política de emergencia. En realidad, los NGEU representan el mayor experimento de política industrial coordinada en Europa en décadas, orientada a transformar las economías nacionales a largo plazo.

Su objetivo no es solo recuperar lo perdido, sino redefinir el modelo productivo europeo, priorizando la transición ecológica, la digitalización y la autonomía estratégica. España se ha convertido en uno de los principales laboratorios de esta nueva estrategia, como pone de manifiesto nuestro reciente estudio, publicado en la revista Structural Change and Economic Dynamics.

De la recuperación a la transformación productiva

España canaliza los fondos NGEU a través del Plan de Recuperación, Transformación y Resiliencia. Su diseño deja claro que no se trata de gastar rápido sino de orientar la inversión hacia sectores considerados clave para la competitividad futura.

Una parte sustancial de los recursos se dirige a la industria, con especial énfasis en la energía, la movilidad sostenible, la digitalización de procesos productivos y la reducción de emisiones. A diferencia de crisis anteriores, en las que la política económica se centró sobre todo en estimular la demanda, el enfoque actual busca mejorar la estructura productiva.

Los sectores vinculados a la energía concentran una proporción muy elevada de los fondos. Actividades como el hidrógeno verde, las energías renovables, la electrificación del transporte o la descarbonización industrial absorben una parte sustancial de los recursos movilizados. Este patrón no es casual: la transición energética se ha convertido en uno de los ejes centrales de la nueva política industrial europea, tanto por razones climáticas como por su impacto sobre la competitividad y la seguridad económica.

En este contexto destacan los Proyectos Estratégicos para la Recuperación y Transformación Económica (PERTE), grandes iniciativas que reúnen a empresas, administraciones públicas y centros tecnológicos en torno a objetivos concretos. Proyectos ligados al vehículo eléctrico, al hidrógeno renovable o a los semiconductores buscan acelerar cambios estructurales en sectores estratégicos.

La lógica subyacente de estos proyectos es clara: el Estado deja de limitarse a corregir fallos de mercado y pasa a orientar la inversión hacia objetivos concretos, como la descarbonización o la autonomía tecnológica.

Un despliegue territorial desigual

Nuestro estudio pone de manifiesto que la ejecución de los fondos NGEU no es homogénea entre comunidades autónomas. Algunas regiones han logrado poner en marcha convocatorias y resolver proyectos con mayor rapidez mientras que otras muestran retrasos persistentes entre los fondos anunciados y los efectivamente ejecutados.

Comunidades como Aragón, Castilla-La Mancha o el País Vasco presentan tasas de resolución claramente superiores a la media. A modo de ejemplo, en Aragón destacan, por ejemplo, la gigafactoría de baterías de Stellantis, el proyecto de amoníaco verde Armonia Green para fertilizantes y la planta de Calvera Hydrogen para infraestructuras de hidrógeno. En Castilla-La Mancha sobresalen iniciativas como las líneas de cargadores eléctricos de Mahle, un gran hub de hidrógeno renovable para fertilizantes y los sistemas de hidrógeno para aeronaves solares desarrollados por Skydweller. En el País Vasco, la reorientación industrial se apoya en proyectos como la electrificación total de la planta de Mercedes-Benz, la planta de baterías de estado sólido de Basquevolt y grandes electrolizadores para hidrógeno verde y e-fuels.

En cambio, Cataluña, a pesar de concentrar uno de los mayores volúmenes absolutos de fondos concedidos, presenta tasas de ejecución sensiblemente más bajas. Este resultado no responde a la ausencia de proyectos estratégicos –como la electrificación de la plataforma industrial de SEAT, la planta de refinado de metales para baterías de BASF o los proyectos de hidrógeno industrial y eólica marina flotante asociados al clúster PLEMCAT–, sino que puede estar debido a la mayor complejidad administrativa derivada de un elevado número de iniciativas, a una estructura empresarial más fragmentada y a un mayor peso de proyectos intensivos en I+D, cuyos procesos de evaluación y ejecución son más prolongados.

Estas diferencias sugieren que la capacidad de ejecutar los fondos depende no solo del volumen asignado o del tejido productivo existente, sino también del tipo de proyectos promovidos, su grado de madurez y la capacidad administrativa para gestionarlos.

Distribución regional y tasas de resolución de los fondos Next Generation EU (en millones de euros)
Fuente: elaboración propia

Desigualdad entre empresas

Algo similar ocurre a nivel empresarial. Aunque las pymes tienen un alto grado de participación, los proyectos de mayor volumen económico se concentran en empresas grandes y capital-intensivas (que requieren de inversiones muy altas en maquinaria, fábricas e infraestructura), especialmente en sectores energéticos. Mientras la industria manufacturera agrupa a la mayoría de las empresas beneficiarias, actividades como la electricidad y el suministro energético, con un número reducido de compañías, concentran una parte muy significativa del volumen total de ayudas.

Distribución en España de los fondos Next Generation EU por tipo de beneficiario.
Fuente: elaboración propia

Territorialmente, Madrid destaca por concentrar una proporción muy elevada del importe total concedido a pesar de no ser la comunidad con mayor número de beneficiarios. En cambio, regiones como Cataluña o la Comunidad Valenciana presentan importes medios por empresa sensiblemente más bajos, lo que puede ser reflejo de una base productiva más fragmentada.

Una política contracíclica

Estos fondos europeos no se han dirigido exclusivamente a las empresas más rentables. En muchos casos, los recursos han llegado a compañías que sufrieron un mayor deterioro financiero durante la pandemia. Esto revela una lógica claramente contracíclica: sostener la inversión y evitar que la crisis frene procesos de modernización necesarios para el futuro.

Además, los primeros datos apuntan a mejoras posteriores en indicadores como productividad, rentabilidad y tamaño empresarial. Esto hace pensar que los fondos están reforzando la capacidad productiva de parte del tejido industrial. Sin embargo, la transformación estructural no es automática. Depende de que los proyectos generen aprendizaje, encadenamientos productivos y efectos de arrastre, y de que las administraciones sean capaces de evaluar resultados y corregir desviaciones.

Qué preocupa ahora

La experiencia acumulada apunta a una conclusión clara: el éxito de los fondos NGEU no depende solo del volumen de recursos movilizados, sino de cómo se gestionan y con qué criterios se asignan. Dicho de otro modo: si el volumen de recursos es importante, la forma de gestionarlos es decisiva.

Desde una perspectiva de política pública, el reto es doble:

  1. Reforzar la capacidad administrativa (con recursos humanos suficientes, personal cualificado y sistemas de información eficaces), especialmente en aquellas comunidades con mayores dificultades para diseñar, gestionar y ejecutar proyectos complejos. Sin este refuerzo, se mantiene el riesgo de que haya cuellos de botella en el aprovechamiento pleno de los fondos y las desigualdades territoriales se hagan más profundas.

  2. Mejorar el acceso de las pymes a las áreas más estratégicas no solo por el número de proyectos, sino también por su volumen y calidad. Esto exige simplificar los procedimientos, apoyar la cooperación empresarial y fortalecer los mecanismos de acompañamiento técnico.

Afianzar la política industrial española

Una política industrial orientada a objetivos solo será sostenible si incorpora evaluación, aprendizaje y corrección. Los fondos NGEU ofrecen una oportunidad histórica para modernizar la economía española, pero su legado dependerá de que se generen capacidades productivas duraderas y no se limiten a una expansión temporal de la inversión.

Habrá que ver si con estos recursos España es capaz de articular una política industrial de largo plazo, que permita construir una industria más competitiva, sostenible y territorialmente equilibrada, en un contexto geopolítico y geoeconómico cada vez más complejo e incierto.

The Conversation

Gabriel Lozano Reina recibe fondos de la Agencia Estatal de Investigación (proyecto PID2024-159036NA-I00) y de la Fundación Cajamurcia.

Gregorio Sánchez Marín recibe fondos de la Agencia Estatal de Investigación (Proyecto PID2024-159036NA-I00).

J. Samuel Baixauli recibe fondos de la Agencia Estatal de Investigación (proyecto PID2024-159036NA-I00) y de la Fundación Cajamurcia.

ref. Fondos Next Generation Europa: una oportunidad de oro para consolidar el sector industrial en España – https://theconversation.com/fondos-next-generation-europa-una-oportunidad-de-oro-para-consolidar-el-sector-industrial-en-espana-273284

¿Por qué solo escuchamos a quien nos da la razón? El sesgo de confirmación tiene la respuesta

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Francisco Vicente Conesa, Profesor en Psicología, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha

Master1305/Shutterstock

Seguro que usted conoce –en su familia o grupo de amigos– a alguien que tiene una ideología muy opuesta a la suya. Piénselo un momento… ¿Cree que la culpa de que piense así es de que siempre consume los mismos medios de comunicación? ¿Puede que solo haga caso a información que concuerde con sus propias creencias? ¿Se enfada cuando le llevan la contraria?

Si ha respondido que sí a estas preguntas, es probable que dicha persona esté siendo víctima del sesgo de confirmación. Sin embargo, y aunque le pueda sorprender, tengo una mala noticia: usted también lo es.

El sesgo de confirmación es una tendencia a buscar, interpretar y recordar prioritariamente información que concuerda con nuestras creencias previas.

Los primeros estudios sobre el tema los llevó a cabo en los años 60 del siglo pasado el psicólogo cognitivo Peter Wason. Dichos estudios mostraron que, al enfrentarse al reto de comprobar la veracidad de una hipótesis, las personas tienden a seleccionar información que confirme su creencia inicial en lugar de intentar refutarla, lo que puede llevar a errores eventuales de razonamiento.

Esto, más que tratarse de un error puntual, se muestra en el ser humano como una especie de defecto de fábrica. Así que no tiene por qué sentirse mal: hasta profesionales entrenados para ser objetivos (como científicos y médicos) caen sistemáticamente este sesgo. Como ve, no es un problema de inteligencia, sino un error profundamente humano.

Las personas razonables también caen

Sin embargo, es muy tentador pensar que usted o yo, como personas razonables, no caemos en estos errores. Craso error. Si piensa que usted está exento de ser víctima de este sesgo, quizás debería plantearse los siguientes puntos:

  1. Busca siempre la información en fuentes similares. Aunque el sesgo de confirmación ha sido entendido como un proceso que incluye búsqueda de información, procesamiento de dicha información y recuerdo de la información procesada, reciente evidencia apunta a la búsqueda de información como el elemento clave para identificar el sesgo. Es decir, el sesgo no solo se encuentra en el cómo pensamos, sino dónde decidimos consultar en primer lugar y a qué fuente acudimos para hacerlo.

    Normalmente, acudimos primero a fuentes que confirman nuestras evidencias y evitamos aquellas que las cuestionan. ¿Acaso no confía siempre en los mismos medios de comunicación y descarta otros de forma automática?

  2. Evalúa de forma diferente la información según encaje con sus creencias. El sesgo de información no afecta solo a lo que buscamos, sino a cómo evaluamos la información que encontramos. La evidencia muestra que tendemos a aceptar con mucha más facilidad la información que encaja con nuestras creencias, mientras que sometemos a un escrutinio mucho más exhaustivo aquella información que nos contradice. En la práctica, lo que coincide con usted le parece razonable rápidamente, mientras que lo que no, le parece débil o poco fiable. Este fenómeno se ha descrito como razonamiento motivado: somos mucho más críticos con la información que no encaja con nuestras creencias previas, lo que nos motiva a buscar razones para descartar esa información.

  3. Siente incomodidad emocional cuando se plantean pruebas en contra de sus creencias. Cambiar de opinión no es un proceso estrictamente racional. Un estudio de neuroimagen sobre ideas políticas mostró que las estructuras cerebrales relacionadas con las emociones, especialmente las negativas, se activan cuando se presenta evidencia en contra de nuestras creencias. Es decir, parece que no evaluamos la información solo por lo que nos parece razonable, sino en función de lo que nos hace sentir.

    Seguramente merece la pena evaluar detenidamente si rechaza cierta información porque es incorrecta o porque, sencillamente, le incomoda.

¿Es consciente de que es víctima de este sesgo?

Evidencia reciente sugiere que las personas somos menos susceptibles a ser víctimas de este sesgo si somos conscientes de que podemos caer en él. Un estudio con más de 1 400 participantes mostró que aquellos que recibían una breve formación sobre el sesgo de confirmación fueron más capaces de distinguir entre noticias falsas y verdaderas que el grupo de control que no recibió la formación. Dicho de otro modo: algo tan sencillo como saber que podemos estar sesgados ayuda considerablemente a ser más críticos.

Por lo tanto, el objetivo no debería ser aprender a pensar sin sesgos –algo muy difícil de conseguir– sino aprender a identificar cuándo estamos cayendo en estos errores.

Quizás este texto pueda contribuir a ayudar al lector a reconocer las señales que indican que podría estar siendo víctima de este sesgo de razonamiento, es decir, confirmando lo que cree que sabe, en lugar de pensar: ¿y si me estoy equivocando?

The Conversation

Francisco Vicente Conesa no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

ref. ¿Por qué solo escuchamos a quien nos da la razón? El sesgo de confirmación tiene la respuesta – https://theconversation.com/por-que-solo-escuchamos-a-quien-nos-da-la-razon-el-sesgo-de-confirmacion-tiene-la-respuesta-279683

Why the US military is stuck using $1 million missiles against Iran’s $20,000 drones

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Aaron Brynildson, Law Instructor, University of Mississippi

A drone is seen during a suspected drone strike targeting an oil warehouse near Erbil, the capital of Iraq’s Kurdistan Region, on April 1, 2026. Gailan Haji/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

It may sound hard to believe, but the almost trillion-dollar U.S. military is struggling to fight cheap drones in its war with Iran.

Iran has built a simple drone, the Shahed, with a motorcycle-type engine, loaded it with explosives and successfully targeted its neighbors’ cities and power plants.

Iran has also hit U.S. military bases with these drones, including an early April 2026 attack on the U.S. Victory Base Complex in Baghdad.

The drones cost between US$20,000 and $50,000 to build. In response, the U.S. military sometimes fires missiles worth more than $1 million to shoot one down.

As a former U.S. Air Force officer and now national security scholar, I believe that math is a problem: The U.S. military for now has a $1 million answer to a $20,000 question. This math tells you almost everything you need to know about one of America’s biggest national security headaches.

And the frustrating part is that the U.S. military watched this happen in Ukraine for years. It knew the threat was coming.

The weapon that changed modern war

The Shahed isn’t impressive because it’s high-tech. It’s impressive because it isn’t.

Inspection of captured Shahed drones has found that many of their parts are made by ordinary commercial companies. That includes processors from a U.S. manufacturer, fuel pumps from a U.K. company and converters from China.

These military components aren’t hard to get. You could find similar parts in factories or farm machinery. That’s exactly what makes the Shahed so tough to deal with.

Russia, which also produces the drone, tolerates losing more than 75% of its Shahed stock because even at those loss rates, it’s winning the math battle against Ukraine. Russia or Iran don’t need every drone to hit its target. They just need to keep sending waves of them until their opponent runs out of expensive missiles to shoot back.

Ukraine, which had no choice but to learn fast, eventually figured out a better answer. Ukraine developed cheap interceptor drones that could slam into Shahed drones before they reached their targets. Each interceptor costs about $1,000 to $2,000, and Ukrainian manufacturers are producing thousands of them per month. That’s better math: a $2,000 interceptor against a $20,000 attacker.

A fragment of a drone rests on the ground.
This undated photograph released by the Ukrainian military’s Strategic Communications Directorate shows the wreckage of what Kyiv has described as an Iranian Shahed drone downed near Kupiansk, Ukraine.
Ukrainian military’s Strategic Communications Directorate via AP

Ukraine’s battlefield experience, as a result, has become one of the most valuable resources in the world, with American and allied forces asking Ukrainian drone experts to share their knowledge.

Why can’t the U.S. churn out a solution of its own? Because the U.S. military doesn’t have a technology problem but a bureaucracy problem.

The Pentagon’s three-legged slowdown

The U.S. Department of Defense typically can’t just buy things. It follows a long, complicated process that can take a decade or more to go from “we need something” to “here it is.” That process runs through three separate bureaucratic systems, each of which can cause years of delay.

First, someone must write a formal document, known as a requirement, that explains exactly what they need and why. A military service, such as the Air Force, for example, drafts up a requirement and routes it through an internal service review within only their branch.

Until recently, this service-vetted requirement went through a Pentagon review process, the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, where all joint services took a look. This process, which the Department of Defense ended in 2025, required approval from military officials.

Even though the joint requirements process was ended, implementation of a new system is far from complete, and the existing culture potentially remains. Under the old requirements process, it took over 800 days to get a requirement approved.

Second, any new program then needs money. This is handled through the planning, programming, budgeting and execution process, a budget cycle designed in 1961. Getting a new program into the budget typically takes more than two years after the requirement is approved, because the military must submit its budget request years in advance. By then, the threat has potentially already moved on.

Third, once a requirement is approved and money allocated, the program then must be developed and built. The average major defense acquisition program now takes almost 12 years from program start just to deliver an initial capability to troops in the field, according to a 2025 Government Accountability Office report.

Add it up and you get a system where the military sees a threat, begs for a solution, argues for money and waits a decade.

Why the system is built this way

The Shahed drone exposed a gap that defense experts have been warning about for years: The U.S. military is very good at building the most advanced, most expensive weapons in the world, but it struggles to build cheap, simple things fast. That is the opposite of what this new kind of warfare demands.

It would be easy, but inaccurate, to blame the military for the decade-long contract process. The real answer is more complicated.

A man in a suit stands next to a drone and speaks to a group of seated people.
House Speaker Mike Johnson speaks next to an Iranian Shahed-136 drone on May 8, 2025, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington.
Tom Brenner for The Washington Post via Getty Images

The Pentagon’s lengthy process was designed by the Department of Defense and Congress for a reason. Policymakers created the current system during the Cold War to combat excessive and redundant spending by the separate service branches. The system is built with checkpoints, reviews and approvals to make sure taxpayer money isn’t wasted.

Legacy military contractors also benefit from this dysfunctional process and resist change. They have the capital and know-how to wait out the predictable and stable existing contracts, while vying for new ones. These military contractors rarely need to worry about upstart contractors because they know small companies cannot survive waiting for a decade to secure funding for their prototypes.

The problem is that those rules were built for a world where the biggest threat was another superpower’s expensive jets and missiles. It wasn’t built to fight a flying bomb made from tractor parts. This type of threat requires fast innovation from lean companies, the exact companies that struggle in the current budget process.

What’s changing

There are signs of movement. In August 2025, the Pentagon killed its old requirements process entirely and replaced it with a faster, more flexible system.

However, killing the requirements process dealt with only one leg of the three-legged monster. The 1960s-era budget process that determines how money flows remains largely intact.

The most important reforms still need Congress to act, and Congress moves slowly, too. Congress has launched studies into reforming this system numerous times, with the answers being too politically difficult to implement.

Officials are expanding the use of flexible contracting tools, such as Other Transaction Authority, that let the military skip some traditional rules to get anti-drone technology faster. Yet these flexible contracting tools still represent a small slice of the Defense budget, and their effectiveness is unclear.

Ultimately, instead of using flexible contracting tools to quickly buy new prototypes, the bureaucratically easier solution could be to buy more of the expensive, already approved missiles.

This quick fix would reload the military’s stock of interceptors with existing weapons systems, which is the source of the bad math. The math would get worse and at the same time the operational imperative to find cheaper and better solutions might disappear.

So, as the Shahed keeps flying, the most powerful military in the world is still figuring out the paperwork and looking to other countries for help.

The Conversation

Aaron Brynildson served in the U.S. Air Force from 2016-2025.

ref. Why the US military is stuck using $1 million missiles against Iran’s $20,000 drones – https://theconversation.com/why-the-us-military-is-stuck-using-1-million-missiles-against-irans-20-000-drones-281089

When a spouse starts a business, the other partner pays a hidden price

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kanwal Bokhari, Assistant Professor (Teaching) Finance, University of Calgary

When an entrepreneur leaves a salaried job to pursue a venture, the conversation nearly always centres on them: the risk they’re taking, the opportunity they’re pursuing and the funding they need.

But for every entrepreneur who makes that leap, there’s often a spouse or partner who may not have chosen the startup life but is about to live it anyway.

These partners frequently lend savings, absorb extra housework and provide the emotional scaffolding that keeps the venture going. Despite this, they remain nearly invisible in both policy and research even though without them, many new businesses would never get off the ground.

Instead, governments typically pour resources like grants, accelerators and mentorship programs squarely at founders. These kinds of supports are usually designed for individual founders, and rarely acknowledge the wider household that is often sharing that risk in practice.

The costs borne by partners are real, and research like ours is only beginning to measure them.

The cost nobody is counting

More than 83,000 Canadian businesses were created in 2023 alone, according to Statistics Canada, and the vast majority of them were small, with four employees or fewer. For many of the entrepreneurs creating those businesses, there are families at home absorbing the consequences.

Scholars have paid close attention to how starting a business affects founders’ own mental health and happiness. What they have largely overlooked is the person standing next to the founder, even though work and family life are deeply intertwined, and stress in one domain often spills over into the other.

The scattered evidence that does exist is troubling. In Denmark, researchers found that spouses of new entrepreneurs were significantly more likely than spouses of non-entrepreneurs to be prescribed sleep aids and anti-anxiety medication in the two years after the business launched.

Similarly, in Australia, a recent study found measurable drops in psychological health among partners whose spouses entered self-employment.

These findings confirm that spousal strain is real, but they leave a crucial question unanswered: Why does it happen, and does the answer depend on what kind of business gets started and who starts it? Our recent study addressed exactly that question.

Three decades, 628 couples

We followed 628 British couples through three decades of life, drawing on two large national surveys that tracked the same households from 1991 to 2022. In every couple, one partner left a salaried job to start a business. Most went solo; around 20 per cent hired employees. About 58 per cent of the founders were men.

We also compared these households to similar couples where one partner changed jobs but stayed in paid employment. Partners of new entrepreneurs reported a meaningful drop in their own mental health compared to partners of people who simply switched employers.

We also found that this toll on well-being crossed over from the founder to their spouse along two specific routes: money and time.

New businesses typically earn less than the salaried job they replaced, especially in the early years. The mortgage, the school fees, the grocery bill — none of these shrink to match the new income. The financial squeeze manifests as constant low-grade worry.

Founders also work long hours, often nights and weekends, and those hours come directly out of a couple’s shared life. The partner left at home picks up the domestic tasks the founder used to handle, often without anyone explicitly agreeing to the new arrangement.

Both routes showed up clearly in our data. Which one mattered more depended on two things: the founder’s gender and the type of business.

How gender and business type change the picture

The money route hurt spouses across the board, regardless of whether the founder was a man or a woman. The time route was different. When men started businesses, their working hours shot up, and their partners paid the price through increased responsibilities at home.

When women started businesses, however, the same spike in hours did not appear, and their partners’ well-being was not affected through this route. Instead, women who launched ventures continued shouldering the bulk of the housework and child care alongside their businesses, rather than passing those responsibilities to their partners. They absorbed the time cost themselves.

This pattern reflects broader, persistent inequalities in how domestic labour is distributed within households.

The type of venture mattered, too. Founders who worked alone bore the brunt of the income hit, as they had no employees to generate revenue, so their own earnings dropped sharply — pulling household finances with them. For their partners, money was the main source of strain.

Founders who hired staff faced a different problem: managing employees meant longer hours spent on recruiting, training and oversight, even if the business was earning enough. For their partners, lost time together was the bigger issue.

Recognizing the family behind the founder

Our results suggest a one-size-fits-all support package for entrepreneurs will inevitably miss the mark. Different kinds of ventures create different pressures at home: Solo founders may need financial breathing room, employer-founders may need help reclaiming time.

Before launching a business, couples can benefit from conducting a “family-stress audit” — a conversation that involves mapping out the likely income hit and time demands for the specific type of business being planned.

For policymakers and support organizations, support should be matched to the type of strain. Entrepreneurship support organizations could expand to include partner-oriented resources, such as information sessions or planning tools, to support those who didn’t start the business but are living with its consequences every day.

Entrepreneurship is widely credited with creating jobs, driving innovation and economic growth. But it also imposes private costs on the partners who provide the hidden labour and emotional support that make new ventures possible.

Recognizing these patterns is the first step toward building startup ecosystems that sustain not just entrepreneurs and their ventures, but the families behind both.

The Conversation

Seok-Woo Kwon received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Jia Bao, Kanwal Bokhari, and Wei Yu 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. When a spouse starts a business, the other partner pays a hidden price – https://theconversation.com/when-a-spouse-starts-a-business-the-other-partner-pays-a-hidden-price-280414

Les maladies rénales sont en hausse en Afrique : le rôle des facteurs de risque génétiques

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Segun Fatumo, Professor and Chair of Genomic Diversity, Queen Mary University of London

À chaque minute, vos reins travaillent intensément. Ils filtrent environ 200 litres de sang, éliminent les déchets, équilibrent les sels et les fluides, et régulent la pression artérielle. Tout cela se fait sans aucun effort conscient de votre part.

Mais lorsque vos reins commencent à défaillir, les conséquences sont dévastatrices. Cela entraîne notamment la fatigue, l’accumulation de liquide et des complications cardiaques. Certaines personnes finissent par avoir besoin d’une dialyse ou d’une greffe pour rester en vie.

Les maladies rénales constituent l’une des causes de décès dont la prévalence augmente le plus rapidement dans le monde. Environ 850 millions de personnes vivent avec une forme ou une autre de maladie rénale, soit plus que le nombre cumulé de personnes touchées par le diabète et le cancer. La maladie rénale chronique – lorsque vos reins perdent lentement leur capacité à remplir leur fonction – est responsable d’environ 1,5 million de décès chaque année dans le monde, et ce chiffre est en hausse.

Mais la maladie rénale se développe silencieusement, avec peu de symptômes. Lorsque ces symptômes apparaissent, la maladie est déjà grave.

Et ce fardeau n’est pas réparti de manière égale. Les personnes d’ascendance africaine sont quatre fois plus susceptibles de développer la forme la plus grave d’insuffisance rénale que les personnes d’ascendance européenne. En Afrique subsaharienne, les taux d’hypertension artérielle et de diabète de type 2 sont également en hausse. Ces deux maladies sont les principales causes de lésions rénales. Environ 30 % des adultes en Afrique subsaharienne souffrent d’hypertension artérielle, et 25 millions (un adulte sur 20) sont atteints de diabète) – la plupart sans diagnostic ni traitement.

L’Afrique subsaharienne compte moins de néphrologues, d’établissements de dialyse et de services de transplantation par habitant que le reste du monde. L’Afrique dans son ensemble compte moins d’un néphrologue par million d’habitants. Dans certains pays africains, il n’y a aucun néphrologue. La moyenne mondiale est d’environ 10 pour un million. Dans les pays à revenu élevé, ce chiffre atteint 23 pour un million. Pour la plupart des Africains atteints d’insuffisance rénale, il n’existe tout simplement aucun traitement disponible.

Il est donc essentiel d’identifier les personnes à risque avant que leurs reins ne cessent de fonctionner.

Notre étude récemment publiée comble une lacune importante dans ce domaine. Nous sommes membres du consortium KidneyGenAfrica, un partenariat panafricain qui vise à atteindre l’excellence en matière de recherche et de formation dans le domaine de la génomique des maladies rénales.

Nous avons découvert de nouvelles variantes génétiques indiquant un risque de maladie rénale chez les populations africaines. Nous avons également mis en évidence des différences entre les risques génétiques auxquels sont exposées les personnes vivant en Afrique, d’une part, et les personnes d’origine africaine vivant en Amérique du Nord et en Europe, d’autre part.

Cela montre à quel point il est important que la médecine s’appuie sur des recherches adaptées aux personnes concernées.

Comprendre la maladie rénale

La maladie rénale n’apparaît pas soudainement. Elle se développe souvent progressivement, sous l’effet d’une combinaison de facteurs. Certaines personnes sont porteuses de variants génétiques, de petites différences dans leur ADN, qui rendent leurs reins plus vulnérables aux lésions.

D’autres sont confrontées à des risques environnementaux tels qu’une alimentation riche en sel, une hypertension artérielle non contrôlée ou des infections liées au diabète. L’utilisation de plantes médicinales, l’eau contaminée et les toxines environnementales constituent également des risques.

Dans la plupart des cas, c’est la combinaison de ces facteurs qui détermine qui tombe malade et à quelle vitesse. Mais jusqu’à récemment, les populations africaines étaient à peine présentes dans le débat scientifique sur ce sujet. L’Afrique, qui abrite les populations humaines les plus diversifiées génétiquement de la planète, n’était représentée que dans une infime partie de la recherche génomique mondiale. Cela commence à changer.

Grande étude génétique sur les Africains

Nous avons analysé les données génomiques d’environ 26 000 personnes issues d’Afrique orientale, occidentale et australe, ainsi que d’environ 81 000 personnes d’ascendance africaine vivant ailleurs. Il s’agit de la plus grande étude génétique jamais menée sur la fonction rénale chez les Africains du continent.

Notre étude apporte un nouvel éclairage sur la génétique des maladies rénales chroniques au sein de diverses populations africaines. Elle soutiendra également les travaux futurs visant à améliorer la prévention, le diagnostic et le traitement des maladies rénales au sein de ces populations et dans le monde entier.




Read more:
Les Ouest-Africains présentent un risque élevé de maladie rénale selon une nouvelle étude


L’équipe a utilisé une méthode appelée « étude d’association pangénomique », qui analyse l’ensemble du code génétique humain afin d’identifier les variants liés à un trait ou à une maladie particulière. Ici, l’indicateur étudié était le débit de filtration glomérulaire estimé, un résultat de test sanguin standard qui mesure l’efficacité avec laquelle les reins filtrent les déchets. Un score plus faible indique une fonction rénale plus faible et un risque plus élevé de maladie.

En analysant uniquement les populations d’Afrique continentale, l’étude a identifié quatre emplacements génétiques pertinents, dont deux qui n’avaient jamais été signalés auparavant.

En incluant les populations d’ascendance africaine de la diaspora, ce nombre est passé à 19 sites, dont trois nouveaux. Quatre de ces sites génétiques ont été localisés avec une grande précision. Cela signifie que l’équipe a pu identifier la variante génétique spécifique la plus susceptible d’être à l’origine de l’effet, plutôt que de se contenter de signaler une région du génome où quelque chose de pertinent se produisait.

Chaque site nouvellement découvert constitue désormais une cible potentielle pour de futurs médicaments ou outils de diagnostic.

L’étude a également examiné les scores polygéniques, qui sont des outils permettant d’estimer le risque global d’une personne de développer une maladie. Une conclusion clé a été que les scores établis à partir de données provenant de populations africaines génétiquement similaires donnaient de meilleurs résultats que ceux dérivés d’ensembles de données plus vastes mais génétiquement éloignés.

Cela revêt une importance considérable pour la médecine en Afrique : la science ne fonctionne que si les données de référence correspondent à la population qu’elle est censée servir.

Un gène qui se comporte différemment de part et d’autre de l’Atlantique

Une découverte importante de l’étude concerne un gène appelé APOL1.
Deux variants du gène APOL1, connus sous les noms de G1 et G2, augmentent le risque de plusieurs formes graves de maladies rénales chez les Afro-Américains. On supposait généralement que ce même risque s’appliquait de la même manière aux personnes vivant sur le continent africain.

Cependant, les données suggèrent le contraire. En Afrique continentale, ces variants APOL1 à haut risque sont moins fréquents (et varient selon les régions d’Afrique). Leur association avec une fonction rénale réduite est nettement plus faible que dans la diaspora africaine.

Ce même gène semble se comporter différemment selon le lieu de résidence d’une personne et la population dont elle est issue.

Cette découverte est importante pour le développement de médicaments. Les essais cliniques sur les traitements des maladies rénales doivent inclure des personnes vivant en Afrique et pas seulement des personnes d’origine africaine vivant ailleurs.

Ce qui doit se passer maintenant

Plusieurs mesures doivent découler de cette recherche pour qu’elle profite à la santé des populations :

  • Les systèmes de santé africains doivent investir dans le dépistage précoce des maladies rénales. Des analyses de sang et d’urine simples et abordables permettent de détecter les lésions rénales à un stade où des changements de mode de vie et un traitement médicamenteux peuvent être efficaces. Les outils d’évaluation du risque génétique peuvent aider à identifier les personnes qui ont le plus besoin d’un dépistage.

  • Les laboratoires pharmaceutiques doivent inclure les populations du continent africain dans leurs essais cliniques.

  • La communauté scientifique mondiale doit continuer à investir dans les infrastructures génomiques africaines, notamment les cohortes de recherche et de grands groupes de participants consentants dont les données génétiques et de santé sont collectées et stockées à des fins d’analyse.

Cette étude démontre que les scientifiques africains, en collaboration avec les communautés africaines, peuvent générer des connaissances qui changent la donne à l’échelle mondiale. Elle a permis de mieux affiner La maîtrise de l’un des défis sanitaires les plus urgents.

The Conversation

Segun Fatumo bénéficie d’un financement du Medical Research Council (MRC), de Wellcome et des NIH.

ref. Les maladies rénales sont en hausse en Afrique : le rôle des facteurs de risque génétiques – https://theconversation.com/les-maladies-renales-sont-en-hausse-en-afrique-le-role-des-facteurs-de-risque-genetiques-280600

Forty years after the Chernobyl disaster, its legacy still resonates

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By David Roger Marples, Professor, Russian and East European History, University of Alberta

The explosion at the fourth reactor of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in northern Ukraine on April 26, 1986, changed the lives of thousands of Soviet citizens.

The plant was located 20 kilometres from of the Belarus border, near the confluence of the Uzh and Prypiat rivers and the Kyiv Reservoir. The area was remote, with scattered farms across a rural landscape.

Wind and rainfall dispersed the radiation to the north and northwest. The authorities evacuated the city of Prypiat, three kilometres to the north where 55,000 workers lived, 40 hours after the accident.

More than 70 officials in the Soviet Union’s ruling Communist Party fled the plant. Two operators were killed instantly, while 28 firemen and first aid workers sent to the site died of radiation sickness within three months.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the general secretary of the party’s central committee, had only been in office for six weeks at the time.

In March, he had appeared before the 27th party congress to announced “new thinking,” with watchwords “glasnost” (openness) and “perestroika” (restructuring). Nonetheless, the Soviet government’s reaction to news of the Chernobyl disaster was to stay silent for 40 hours.

On April 28, Soviet citizens heard that an accident had taken place, two people had died and a government commission had been set up to investigate.

What happened at Chernobyl?

The accident at Chernobyl occurred as a result of a safety experiment to determine power generation during a shutdown. It occurred over a holiday period with neither the plant director nor chief engineer present. To ensure the experiment’s success, operators dismantled seven mechanisms that would have safely shut down the reactor.

The graphite-moderated RBMK reactor, based on control rods, had an innate flaw unknown to the operators. It became unstable if operated at low power. When an operator lowered the power, it caused a surge that blew the roof off the reactor, spreading graphite from the core and creating a radiation cloud.

In early May, Gorbachev appeared on television but used the time to denounce “sensational” reports about mass casualties.

Members of the public in the main fallout areas of Ukraine and Belarus were desperate for information. Some 600,000 “liquidators” had the task of removing contaminated topsoil. Coal miners from the Russia and the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine constructed a shelf below the reactor to prevent it falling to the water table.

It took three years before Soviet authorities published maps detailing where radioactive cesium had fallen. The area covered most of Belarus, large areas of northern and western Ukraine, and part of southern Russia.

Thousands of liquidators died between 1986 and 1989, mostly from heart attacks. They were men in their 20s and 30s.

Thyroid cancer developed among children in Belarus by 1990, affecting more than 3,000. Ukraine placed a moratorium on building new reactors by 1990, and Chernobyl itself was shut down by 2000 with a roof (sarkofag or sarcophagus) over the damaged reactor.

Public reaction

As the scale of the disaster became clearer, anger and disillusionment grew among the population. In particular, many questioned why all the energy industries were under Moscow’s control, in ministries that had little knowledge of the local area.

In a way, Chernobyl created glasnost. Journalists wrote critiques of scientists supervising the accident’s aftermath and about the health consequences. The casualty rates far exceeded the totals publicized by the World Health Organization.

In November 1988, anti-nuclear power protests took place in Kyiv under the slogan “The Environment and Us.” Dr. Yuriy Shcherbak (later Ukraine’s ambassador to Canada) formed the Green World Association, which later became the Green Party of Ukraine. A popular movement called Rukh was founded in 1989 and focused on Ukrainian sovereignty, language and telling the truth about Chernobyl.

Both Ukraine and Belarus, however, were slow to accept political change. Party leaders did little to help overcome the aftermath of Chernobyl. A notable rift was evident in both societies between the scientific and party elite on the one hand, and activists, journalists and the general public on the other.

The aftermath of Chernobyl

In August 1986, a Soviet team arrived in Vienna to explain the causes of the accident to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Led by Soviet chemist Valery Legasov, it blamed the accident entirely on human error, ignoring more than 30 known flaws in the RBMK reactor.

On the eve of the accident’s second anniversary, Legasov committed suicide. He was demoralized by the authorities’ failure to heed his warnings about the safety of the reactor. He was likely also suffering from radiation sickness.

Anti-nuclear sentiment across the Soviet Union halted the vast program to expand atomic energy. Political movements in the Baltic States, Ukraine, Georgia and other republics coalesced, forcing the Soviet leadership to make concessions.

By 1991, Gorbachev limited glasnost and introduced the concept of a revised union of sovereign republics. Chernobyl was not the only factor in such a development, but it was a catalyst.

The plant has long been shut down and decommissioned, but its significance remains. Ukraine still depends on nuclear power for about half its energy needs. The Russian invasion saw a brief occupation of the defunct Chernobyl station and a takeover of Ukraine’s largest nuclear plant at Zaporizhzhia.

We should remember the bravery of those who fought the fire and cleaned the area. We should also remember the courage of ordinary people who defied the authorities in a quest for hard information and societal change. And we should keep the memory of the date, one of significant change in the former Soviet Union.

The Conversation

David Roger Marples 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. Forty years after the Chernobyl disaster, its legacy still resonates – https://theconversation.com/forty-years-after-the-chernobyl-disaster-its-legacy-still-resonates-279715

Not getting enough physical activity may be harming your health: Here’s what being sedentary does to your body

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Scott Lear, Professor of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University

Being regularly active can improve your mental well-being, reduce your chances of disease and increase your lifespan.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that adults get at least 150 minutes of moderate activity (brisk walking, easy cycling) or at least 75 minutes of vigorous activity (running, tennis), along with at least two strengthening sessions, per week. But only 73 per cent of adults meet these guidelines worldwide, and 51 per cent of Canadian adults are considered physically inactive.

I’m a professor in Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University and I study how behaviours relate to health and disease. I also write a blog on the role health behaviours play in your health.

What is physical inactivity?

Physical inactivity is defined as not meeting the minimum guidelines for being active. Being physically inactive, however, doesn’t mean you’re not active at all. You could still be doing light activity, like general walking or household chores — just not moderate or vigorous activity. And in general, people who are inactive spend more of their time being sedentary.

Sedentary activities are those of very little or no movement and include sitting, lying down and standing. For most people, the majority of sedentary time is spent sitting.

Various studies report adults spend on average six hours per day sitting. But these studies are based on self-report. The few studies that have used direct measures of activity (such as accelerometers) indicate it may be closer to 10 hours of sitting per day.

This is a concern as the WHO labels physical inactivity as the fourth leading modifiable risk factor for death. It’s estimated that with a 10 per cent increase in activity, 500 million early deaths could be prevented.

Biological changes and health concerns

From a biological perspective, being inactive is more than the opposite of being active. This is because sedentary activities result in unique physiological changes. When you sit, your metabolism slows down. This makes sense, as your energy needs are much lower. It’s not much different from a car engine shutting down at a stoplight.

Prolonged sitting can lead to an accumulation of fats (triglycerides) in your blood. As your body needs less energy when sitting (or lying) down, production of certain enzymes goes down. One of those is lipoprotein lipase (LPL), which breaks down fats in the blood so muscles and organs can use fat for energy.

In rodent studies, LPL decreased when the rodents were inactive. With continuous sitting over months and years, the excess fats can impair insulin and glucose metabolism, and increase your risk for Type 2 diabetes.

Other health risks include weakened muscles. Muscles need movement to keep strong. If they’re not being used, they shrink and get weaker. Varicose veins and deep vein thrombosis can also result from the continually pooling of blood in the lower legs that comes with sitting. And over years, your risk for dementia, cancer, heart disease and early death rise.

It’s quite common to wonder if being active can compensate for sitting. The short answer is yes — being active, even in the presence of long periods of sitting, is better for you than not being active. But it depends on how active you are, and how much you sit.

In a study I co-authored, we found increased sitting was associated with early death regardless of how active you are. But the risk was worse for those who were less active. For those who met the WHO’s physical activity guidelines, sitting for more than six hours per day had the same risk as those who sat less than six hours per day but did not meet the guidelines.

Managing sitting and sedentary behaviour

We’re not going to do away with sitting, nor should we. Sitting is needed to provide time for rest and recovery. Also, many tasks are more comfortably performed while sitting. At present, there isn’t a specific target for sitting time, other than to reduce how much siting you do.

Standing is often mentioned as a solution. And the standing desk industry has exploded in recent years. While standing will result in less sitting, standing for long periods has a similar effect on metabolism as sitting. Other health concerns of prolonged standing include muscle fatigue, varicose veins and potential for greater risk for heart disease.

Replacing sitting (or standing) with movement is the best solution. Our study found replacing 30 minutes of sitting with movement reduced risk for early death by two per cent in people who sat more than four hours per day. But getting up and moving for 30 minutes may not be possible in all situation, so it’s important to reduce continuous, uninterrupted sitting time.

Breaking up sitting every 20-30 minutes with two minutes of activity (light walking, jumping jacks, squats or anything else) is enough to keep your metabolism running and manage insulin and glucose levels. To remind yourself, set your phone alarm every 20-30 minutes and get up and move.

Other ways to decrease sitting time include taking phone calls while pacing in the office and holding walking meetings.

While most people are aware that being active has health benefits, it’s also important to know that being sedentary has health risks. Physical inactivity can adversely affect your health.

The Conversation

Scott Lear has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, Novo Nordisk, Hamilton Health Sciences and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

ref. Not getting enough physical activity may be harming your health: Here’s what being sedentary does to your body – https://theconversation.com/not-getting-enough-physical-activity-may-be-harming-your-health-heres-what-being-sedentary-does-to-your-body-273675

How US presidents shift controversial actions abroad to get around limits at home

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Gawthorpe, Lecturer in History and International Studies, Leiden University

When Donald Trump deported a group of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador in 2025, it was the fulfilment of a long-held wish. Across both of his administrations Trump has pushed officials to find ways to brutalise immigrants, particularly those who are undocumented, believing that doing so will deter others from making the trip.

The Venezuelan nationals were destined for El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, known as Cecot. When they arrived, according to a Human Rights Watch report, they were subjected to systematic beatings, sexual abuse and psychological duress.

The Trump administration amplified reports of conditions in the prison. Trump’s former homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, for example, filmed a video inside Cecot in 2025 in which she thanked El Salvador for “bringing our terrorists here and incarcerating them”.

Trump’s deportations were a chilling sign of how easy it is for US presidents to sidestep the constitution. If Cecot were in the US, it would be recognised as a site of illegal abuses. The constitution’s protection against “cruel and unusual punishments” would cause judges to order it shut down – and it is likely that political outrage would not cease until that order was followed.

Yet by making an agreement with El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, Trump managed to get around these legal and political obstacles. In a recent paper, I explored how Trump’s deportations are part of a broader pattern of what I call “presidential extra-territorialization” – American presidents acting in or through a foreign jurisdiction to circumvent the US constitution.

There is a long-term pattern of cooperation between presidents from both the Republican and Democratic parties and the leaders of foreign countries. It is a pattern that could have grave implications for the future of US democracy.

Outsourcing abuses

The ability of US presidents to engage in this outsourcing of abuses is rooted in two things. First, their control over the vast capabilities of the modern executive branch, with its array of spies, soldiers and law enforcement officials. And second, control over US diplomacy, which is enshrined in Supreme Court precedent.

In 1936, the court ruled that the president is “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations”. This has commonly been interpreted as meaning US presidents cannot be constrained by the other branches of government when conducting diplomacy.

Combined, these factors mean presidents face fewer constraints in foreign affairs than in the domestic realm. They are able to avoid oversight from the courts and Congress by keeping agreements with other governments secret and by acting too fast to be stopped. If they can find just one foreign government willing to enable them, then what is not possible at home suddenly becomes possible overseas.

This lack of constraint was evident in Trump’s deportations. The US government sent the men to El Salvador despite a last-minute ruling by a federal court ordering their return.

And once they were in El Salvador, the Trump administation claimed it was no longer responsible for them and could not be expected to bring them back. The Supreme Court stepped in to pause further such deportations, but only weeks after the fact.

Kristi Noem receives a tour of Cecot with El Salvador's minister of justice and public security.
Kristi Noem receives a tour of Cecot with El Salvador’s minister of justice and public security, Gustavo Villatoro, in March 2025.
United States Department of Homeland Security

Other examples of the power and flexibility of extra-territorialization became apparent during the “war on terror”, when successive US presidents faced the issue of where to send detainees who were suspected terrorists.

If they were brought to the US, they would have had constitutional rights and could not have been tortured or indefinitely imprisoned. So presidents from Bill Clinton in the 1990s onward established a series of agreements with other countries to take and mistreat them instead.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the Bush administration established a series of “black sites” in countries such as Poland, Thailand and Romania in which to hold detainees in secret. Abuses were committed directly by US agents, but still beyond the reach of US courts. The administration held prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba too, another place where the constitution’s reach was limited.

Presidents can also shift territory in response to attempts to constrain their actions. When the US Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay had to be afforded certain rights in 2008, the Obama administration transferred some detainees to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Bagram was not covered by the Supreme Court ruling.

As a US court of appeals noted in 2010, the ability to shift territories so easily seemed to allow the administration to “switch the constitution on or off at will”.

Yet another example of extra-territorialization is the “Five Eyes” intelligence agreement between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and US. As part of this pact, members have been reported to spy on each other’s citizens – an outsourcing of surveillance that allows each to circumvent domestic privacy constraints.

The fact that Trump has engaged in extra-territorialization so openly, in contrast to previous administrations who tried to keep it hidden, is a stark warning.

Even when the president said he was exploring a proposal to send US citizens to Cecot in April 2025, he received little pushback from within his own party. This suggests they have accepted it as a legitimate strategy to achieve policy goals.

In the hyper-polarised atmosphere of contemporary US politics, extra-territorialization is threatening to become a regular tool of governance. To stop that from happening, it is vital to expose and confront it. But first we must understand it.

The Conversation

Andrew Gawthorpe is affiliated with the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

ref. How US presidents shift controversial actions abroad to get around limits at home – https://theconversation.com/how-us-presidents-shift-controversial-actions-abroad-to-get-around-limits-at-home-280769

Heritage is created, not inherited – as Korean pop culture shows

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anna Stein, PhD Student, University of Leicester

An exhibition at South Korea’s Yeosu Arte Museum. BtheJ/Shutterstock

The word “heritage” generally calls to mind the distant past. Ancient buildings, historic objects or traditions passed down over generations. “Heritage” feels old by definition, but it’s not simply something we inherit. It is something we actively make. What matters is not age but the decision to preserve, display and interpret particular parts of culture as meaningful.

Researchers have long argued that heritage is created through social and political processes rather than discovered fully formed. Professor of heritage and museum studies Laurajane Smith, for example, describes heritage as a cultural process rather than a set of old things.

South Korea offers a clear example of how this shift is playing out today. Forms of popular culture that still feel contemporary – including music, television and fashion – are increasingly entering museums and cultural institutions. Rather than waiting decades to be recognised as historically important, they are being treated as heritage in real time.

This challenges the idea that heritage naturally emerges from the past. Instead, it shows how heritage is shaped by present-day choices.


This article is part of our State of the Arts series. These articles tackle the challenges of the arts and heritage industry – and celebrate the wins, too.


For much of the 20th century, heritage institutions focused on age, tradition and permanence. Museums prioritised monuments, fine art and objects connected to political or national history. Everyday life and popular culture were often seen as too ordinary, too commercial or too temporary to preserve.

This distinction has been questioned by museum and heritage researchers. Studies of museum collecting practices show that heritage is always selective and reflects contemporary values and power structures rather than neutral historical importance. Smith’s concept of “authorised heritage discourse” explains how institutions define what counts as heritage and what does not.

Even so, for many people “heritage” still carries an aura of distance. It is associated with what has survived time, rather than what is happening now.

What has changed is how quickly museums are responding to contemporary culture. Internationally, museums have increasingly collected popular music, film, fashion and everyday objects. The Victoria and Albert Museum’s work on contemporary fashion and popular music collections is one prominent example. In the US, the Smithsonian Institution has similarly expanded its collecting to include popular culture and everyday life.

Korean popular culture in heritage spaces

Korean popular culture makes this shift especially visible. The global success of K-pop, television dramas, film and fashion has drawn attention to contemporary Korean culture both within South Korea and internationally. This global circulation is often described as the “Korean Wave” or Hallyu.

In response, museums and cultural centres have begun collecting and exhibiting these cultural forms alongside more established historical material. K-pop costumes have been displayed in museum exhibitions as material evidence of changing aesthetics, performance labour and global cultural exchange, including at the National Museum of Korean Contemporary History. Television dramas are represented through sets, props and production materials that document how these programmes are made and consumed.

National Folk Museum of Korea
The National Folk Museum of Korea.
Richie Chan/Shutterstock

Food culture and domestic interiors are also increasingly framed as heritage. The National Folk Museum of Korea has expanded its exhibitions on modern and contemporary daily life, including housing, food-ways and consumer culture.

What is striking is how recent many of these objects and practices are. They are not relics from a distant past. They are things people still watch, wear, eat and listen to. By bringing them into museums, institutions are effectively declaring their cultural value in the present.

When popular culture enters a heritage space, it changes. Objects are removed from everyday circulation and placed within interpretive frameworks that encourage visitors to see them differently. Exhibition texts, display choices and narratives guide audiences towards particular meanings, such as creativity, national identity or global influence.

Research on museum interpretation shows that these framing decisions are central to how visitors understand cultural value. Korean museums show how quickly this process can happen. Popular culture does not need to age into heritage. It can be made heritage through institutional recognition.

This does not mean everything popular is preserved. Selection remains central. Certain artists, styles and narratives are chosen, while others are excluded. Research on museum collecting has highlighted how gaps and silences are produced alongside preservation.

Who decides what is remembered?

The move towards contemporary heritage raises important questions about authority. Museums, government bodies and cultural organisations all influence what is collected and displayed. In South Korea, heritage decisions are closely tied to cultural policy, tourism and international cultural promotion, as outlined in government cultural policy documents.

Audiences also play a role. Exhibitions focused on popular culture often attract visitors who might not usually engage with museums. Research on visitor engagement shows that popular culture exhibitions are often designed to be immersive and accessible, reshaping expectations of what heritage looks like and who it is for. At the same time, making heritage in the present carries risks. Not all voices are equally represented. Less visible or less marketable forms of culture may be overlooked, even as heritage appears to become more inclusive.

Looking at contemporary Korean culture helps make a broader point. Heritage is no longer confined to the distant past. It is increasingly shaped by the present and reflects what societies value now, not just what they inherit. Recognising this does not diminish the importance of preserving historical sites and objects. Instead, it offers a clearer understanding of heritage as an active process. What we choose to collect, display and remember says as much about today as it does about yesterday.

In a world saturated with popular culture, heritage is no longer something we wait for. It is something we are making all the time.

The Conversation

Anna Stein 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. Heritage is created, not inherited – as Korean pop culture shows – https://theconversation.com/heritage-is-created-not-inherited-as-korean-pop-culture-shows-273613