Babies learn a lot in their first year. But their behaviour doesn’t always tell the full story

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Eylem Altuntas, Researcher, Speech & Language Development, The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University

RDNE Stock Project/Pexels

Anyone who has spent time with a baby knows how unpredictable the first year can feel. One week a baby suddenly seems to “get” something new. The next week, that same response may disappear.

Parents often describe this as progress coming in bursts rather than in a straight line. These changes can be exciting to watch, but they can also raise questions. Did my baby forget? Did something go wrong?

Our new research, published in Language Learning and Development, suggests early language learning unfolds in much the same way. We found babies can pick up how speech sounds are made as early as four months old.

But this early ability does not simply grow stronger month by month. Instead, as babies move through the first year, the way they show what they know can change, even while learning continues quietly in the background.

Learning about speech

In earlier research, we showed babies as young as four months can learn patterns about how speech sounds are made.

After a short game involving two made-up “mini-languages”, four-month-olds could link what they had heard with what they later saw, even when the test was completely silent.

This told us babies were not just remembering individual sounds. They were picking up something more general about speech, such as whether sounds were made with the lips or with the tongue tip.

For many researchers, and for parents following this work, that raised a natural question: if babies can do this so early, what happens next?

Watching learning change over time

To find out, we followed the same babies over time and tested them again at seven and ten months. We also tested a separate group of ten-month-olds who had never seen the task before.

This allowed us to watch how learning changed within the same children, while also seeing how babies at the same age responded when everything was new.

The task itself was designed to be simple and engaging. Babies first learned links between made-up words and cartoon animals. For example, a word like “buviwa”, made using the lips, might always appear with a kangaroo, while a word like “dazolu”, made using the tongue tip, appeared with a kookaburra. Each “language” followed a clear pattern based on how its sounds were made.

Later, babies watched silent videos of a person speaking new words and then saw an animal image. Because the videos were silent, babies had to rely on what they had learned earlier, rather than matching sound and sight in the moment.

At four months, babies showed a clear response, paying closer attention when the talking face matched the animal they had learned. At seven months, this clear response was no longer there, which at first surprised us.

But at ten months, a different pattern emerged. Babies paid more attention when something did not match what they had learned. This response was especially clear in babies who were seeing the task for the first time, and became stronger when results from both ten-month-old groups were considered together.

Reorganising language systems

When we look at these findings together, the pattern starts to make sense.

Younger babies often prefer what feels familiar, while older babies tend to focus more on what is new or unexpected. Seven months appears to be a transitional period. Learning is still happening, but it is not expressed as a clear preference in either direction. Rather than signalling a loss of ability, the shift we see reflects a change in how babies respond as they mature.

This period of change fits with what is happening more broadly in babies’ lives. Between about seven and ten months, babies are becoming increasingly tuned to the sounds of the language they hear every day. They are also beginning to recognise common words and link sounds to meaning.

During this time, their language system is not just growing, it is reorganising. When that happens, learning can look uneven from the outside.

Many parents notice similar moments at home. A baby who once turned immediately toward a familiar voice may suddenly seem less responsive, only to show new signs of understanding weeks later.

These moments can be worrying, especially when progress is expected to be steady. Our findings suggest some of these changes may reflect learning in motion rather than learning lost.

Behaviour doesn’t always tell the full story

For parents, this work is a reminder that behaviour does not always tell the full story. If a baby doesn’t show a clear response at a particular age, it does not necessarily mean they have stopped learning or missed an important step.

For researchers and clinicians, the findings highlight the limits of relying on single tests at single ages. Early language learning is flexible and changing. To understand it properly, we need to look at how babies develop over time, not just how they perform at one moment.

Importantly, the results show babies don’t learn in a straight line, and quiet moments are not empty ones. Even when progress is hard to see, learning may still be unfolding, preparing the ground for what comes next.

The Conversation

Eylem Altuntas 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. Babies learn a lot in their first year. But their behaviour doesn’t always tell the full story – https://theconversation.com/babies-learn-a-lot-in-their-first-year-but-their-behaviour-doesnt-always-tell-the-full-story-274032

Trump’s war language is aggressive and extreme. It also offers some insight into his thinking

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rodrigo Praino, Professor & Director, Jeff Bleich Centre for Democracy and Disruptive Technologies, Flinders University

US President Donald Trump speaks in a way unlike any of his predecessors. His distinctive and highly recognisable style may even play a role in his appeal to his political base. Since the infamous Access Hollywood tapes, he has got away with saying things none of his predecessors would have ever dreamed of saying in public. This is particularly striking in a country that was shocked to learn in the 1970s that Richard Nixon used dirty words in the Oval Office.

Scholars have described Trump’s rhetorical style as “unbalanced vituperation”, stressing his constant use of demeaning language, false equivalences and exclusion.

Even more strikingly, a recent study found Trump’s use of violent vocabulary, especially language linked to war and crime, represents a radical departure from US political tradition.

Since the beginning of the war with Iran, Trump’s rhetoric has become even more combative and outrageous, marking an even sharper shift from the language used by his predecessors in similar occasions.

What effect does this have and what does it tell us about the commander-in-chief’s state of mind?

Demeaning opponents

Trump announced the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei by calling him a “wretched and vile man”. Later, in a Truth Social post, he called him “one of the most evil people in history” and referred to “his gang of bloodthirsty thugs”.

A few days later, he continued denigrating leaders of the Iranian regime, describing them as “deranged scumbags” whose killing was for him a “great honor”. He has also insulted Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his father as Iran’s Supreme Leader, describing him as “unacceptable” and a “lightweight”. He also stated during an interview that he believes Mojtaba is alive but “damaged”.

Americans are no strangers to their presidents using strong language to describe adversaries. Ronald Reagan famously referred to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”, and George W. Bush warned of an “Axis of Evil”.

Yet such rhetoric rarely extended to personal insults against individual foreign leaders. Leaders generally bring a mood to these speeches that recognises their words will be frightening for many people. It also acknowledges that in a war situation, lives will inevitably be lost.

George W. Bush, for example, simply stated that US forces “captured Saddam Hussein alive”. Barack Obama announced to the nation Osama bin Laden’s killing by addressing the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack on US soil simply as “Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist”.

Constant threats

Trump has also shown little restraint in issuing threats. At the beginning of the conflict he stated in an interview that they had not even started hitting Iran hard and that the “big wave” was coming soon. He later posted on Truth Social that he was ready to hit Iran “twenty times harder” and threatened to “make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again”, adding that “death, fire and fury will reign [sic] upon them”. At one point, he even suggested that he might strike Iran’s Kharg Island oil export hub again “just for fun”.

This language is not only vitriolic. It also is in sharp contrast with the rhetoric of past US presidents who often emphasised restraint in the use of force and showed willingness to de-escalate military conflicts.

Previous presidents have been very clear about the strength of the US military, but they have also tried to focus on diplomacy and negotiation.

Obama, talking about Syria, famously remarked that “the United States military doesn’t do pinpricks”. Yet, moments later, he asked Congress to postpone a vote authorising the use of force while his administration pursued diplomatic options.

Nixon stated during the Vietnam war that “The peace we seek to win is not victory over any other people, but the peace that comes ‘with healing in its wings’; with compassion for those who have suffered; with understanding for those who have opposed us; with the opportunity for all the peoples of this Earth to choose their own destiny”.

Trump’s threats of escalation also raise concerns about the safety of civilians and the protection of critical infrastructure. He recently stated he “didn’t do anything to do with the energy lines, because having to rebuild that would take years”. This remark suggests some awareness of the consequences of such actions.

Even so, earlier presidents often distinguished explicitly between military targets and civilian populations. George H. W. Bush, during the Gulf War, declared “our quarrel is not with the people of Iraq. We do not wish for them to suffer”.

In 2023, George W. Bush warned Iraqi military and civilian personnel: “do not destroy oils wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people”.

Words matter

It is still unclear why Trump’s rhetoric is so violent and so far removed from the language of virtually every US president before him. A 2020 study found Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric often aims to create a sense of crisis to mobilise his domestic base – or distract from political troubles at home.

Some observers argue Trump has used, or even manufactured, national crises as a mechanism to expand executive power through emergency declarations. Whether this is the case in the current war with Iran remains to be seen.

But words certainly matter.

On December 19 1945, US President Harry S. Truman issued a special message to Congress recommending the Department of War and the Department of the Navy be merged into a single “Department of National Defense”. Between 1947 and 1949, Congress and the executive branch implemented this proposal. Many other countries went through a similar process in the postwar period, replacing the language of “war” from the name of their departments and ministries with the more restrained term “defence”.

Seventy-six years later, in 2025, Trump reversed that tradition with an executive order renaming the Department of Defense as the US Department of War.

This same executive order clearly states that the new name demonstrates a willingness to fight wars at a moment’s notice. And the reason is not only to defend, but to “secure what is ours”.

Viewed in light of the current war with Iran, those words provide some insight into the administration’s thinking. They also invite reflection on other words coming out of the administration and its supporters, including the “Gulf of America”, the idea of Canada as the “51st state”, and even the far-fetched “Trump 2028” chant.

The Conversation

Rodrigo Praino receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Defence.

ref. Trump’s war language is aggressive and extreme. It also offers some insight into his thinking – https://theconversation.com/trumps-war-language-is-aggressive-and-extreme-it-also-offers-some-insight-into-his-thinking-278427

As the war drags on, what does victory look like for the US, Israel and Iran?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Australian National University; The University of Western Australia; Victoria University

As the Middle East war enters its third week, there is no sign from either Iran or the United States and Israel that they will stop the fighting any time soon. It is getting more violent and nasty by the day.

The Iranian Islamic regime is fighting for its survival, while the US and Israel want to substantially degrade or destroy it.

The Iranian side lacks the US and Israeli firepower, yet it has proved to be more resilient than its adversaries may have expected. It has resolved to fight for as long as possible and inflict as much economic pain regionally and globally as is necessary.

So where do things go from here? What do the US and Israel want to achieve in the war, and how might it end?

Trump’s incoherent objectives

The US and Israel launched this “war of choice” against Iran on February 28. Trump evidently expected the formidable US air and naval power, as well as Israeli air power, would rapidly prevail.

At a minimum, Trump was anticipating the Iranian regime would then accept his demand for a favourable nuclear deal. But he was also suggesting broader aims aligned with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s objectives – to force Iran to forfeit its long-range ballistic missiles and sever its ties with regional proxies.

This would then open the way for Iran’s restless population to resume their protests, aiming to topple the regime and replace it with one acceptable to Washington and Jerusalem.

But this has not happened.

It is now abundantly clear the US and Israel started a war without a clear goal, strategy, timeline, end game or justification. There was also no adherence to international law.

The Trump administrations’s objectives have been confusing and contradictory, with different narratives being spun by the president and his main advisers.

They have included everything from freeing the oppressed Iranian people to removing a direct threat to America and destroying Iran’s nuclear program and missile capability. (Never mind Trump previously claimed he had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program in last year’s bombing campaign.)

Trump has also called for regime change, or as he put it, “a little excursion” to get rid of “some evil” leaders.

Trump attempts to clarify reasons for Iran war.

Trump has further claimed the human and economic cost of the war – including oil and gas shortages worldwide – will be temporary. But when the fighting will stop is anyone’s guess. Trump has insisted the war is already won, then said it will only end when he feels it in his “bones”.

In the meantime, the US has intensified its air bombardment of Iran, claiming to have hit 15,000 targets and destroyed every military site on Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf, the main terminal for exporting 90% of the country’s oil.

Trump is now reportedly considering sending US forces to occupy the island, while inviting US allies, as well as China, to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz to oil shipments.

Inviting China to such a coalition is a fanciful idea – it has good relations with Iran. Most other countries have thus far refused to commit.

Israel’s one clear goal

While Trump’s goals seem to change by the minute, Netanyahu has a more clear war objective. He wants to destroy not only the Islamic regime but also diminish the Iranian state, no matter the consequences for the Iranian people and territorial integrity.

He has also lately been vocal about his ambition for a Biblical notion of “greater Israel”, based on the Book of Genesis, spanning from the Euphrates River to the Nile River. The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, backed him on this in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson.

Although Netanyahu has been widely condemned for voicing these ambitions, he has not backed away from them.

Meanwhile, Israel has also just sent troops into southern Lebanon for what it calls “limited and targeted ground operations” against Hezbollah, though many fear this could lead to a prolonged occupation. Israel’s defence minister says residents will not be permitted to return until the safety of northern Israel is secured.

Iran’s strategy: hold on

Whatever one’s view of the Iranian regime, it has been more goal-oriented and strategic than its adversaries. It has also displayed a remarkable degree of entrenchment and durability.

The regime rapidly replaced the slain supreme leader with his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, though he has not yet been seen in public.

Despite all the internal and external pressure the regime is facing, the members of its heavily armed and well-structured security and bureaucratic apparatus have remained solidly loyal.

And though thousands joined street protests against the regime before they were quashed in January, other Iranians have united behind the regime. Many Iranians have historically been motivated to support the regime against external aggression, due to civilisational pride, a Shia tradition of martyrdom and a strong sense of nationalism.

On the battlefield, the regime is pursuing a strategy of asymmetrical warfare, with the aim of outlasting the US and Israel and inflicting as much damage as possible. This entails turning the war into a regional conflict to pressure the Arab states in the Persian Gulf to push the Trump administration for an end to the war – and perhaps reconsider their reliance on the US as a security provider.

The regime has managed to hold out so far, and rejected any negotiations.

Two possible outcomes

As the situation stands now, the scene is set for a long, bloody and destructive war. Each of the protagonists has painted itself into a corner and doesn’t know how to get out.

There are two possible ways the war could end.

The first is centred on hardware. Whichever side depletes its stocks of missiles and interceptors first could signal a desire to end the fighting.

The second possibility is that Trump claims he has degraded the regime sufficiently and declares a kind of victory. He has hinted at this already given the domestic opposition to the war (including some of his influential MAGA supporters), the growing economic costs of the war, and the impending midterm elections.

If this happens, the Islamic regime will also claim victory, given it has held on and remains intact.

Whatever the outcome, the Iranian and Lebanese civilians would have borne the brunt of this war, and the region will transition to another historical phase of uncertainty and instability in a highly polarised world.

The Conversation

Amin Saikal 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. As the war drags on, what does victory look like for the US, Israel and Iran? – https://theconversation.com/as-the-war-drags-on-what-does-victory-look-like-for-the-us-israel-and-iran-278520

Attacks on hospitals are surging in war zones. What do the laws of war say about protecting them?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

Afghanistan says at least 400 people have been killed in a Pakistani airstrike on a drug rehabilitation hospital in Kabul on Monday night, with potentially hundreds more wounded.

Pakistan has denied deliberately targeting the health-care facility. In a statement on X, the Pakistani Information and Broadcasting Ministry said the strikes “precisely targeted military installations and terrorist support infrastructure including technical equipment storage and ammunition storage of Afghan Taliban”.

Attacks on health-care facilities are surging worldwide.

On March 14, an Israeli airstrike hit a health-care facility in Lebanon, killing 12 doctors, nurses and paramedics. The strike brought the number of health-care workers killed in Lebanon in recent days to 31.

Since early March, the World Health Organization (WHO) has verified 27 attacks on health-care facilities in Lebanon alone, as Israeli strikes in Lebanon and joint US–Israeli operations in Iran have intensified.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the WHO condemned these attacks as violations of international law.

So, what laws protect medical facilities, staff and patients during conflict? And do they lose this protection if facilities are used to shelter combatants?

What the ‘laws of war’ say about protecting hospitals

International humanitarian law contains detailed rules to protect medical personnel, facilities and the sick and wounded during armed conflict.

Under these “laws of war”:

  • medical personnel, including doctors, nurses and paramedics, must be respected and protected while performing their duties

  • there are special protections for ambulances and transport used exclusively for medical purposes

  • these protections extend to the wounded and sick in their care. This includes enemy fighters who require treatment and are no longer taking part in hostilities

  • impartial humanitarian organisations must be allowed to provide medical assistance. Consent to their work cannot be refused arbitrarily

  • medical facilities must display the distinctive protective emblems of the Red Cross, Red Crescent or Red Crystal. Medical personnel must carry identification and armlets displaying these emblems

  • misusing these symbols to shield military operations is prohibited. Doing so may amount to perfidy, a type of deliberate deception which is a war crime under international law

  • deliberately attacking medical personnel or facilities displaying these emblems can also constitute a war crime.

Shattered glass surrounds a damaged hospital ward.
Damage caused by US and Israeli attacks on Shahid Motahhari Hospital in Tehran.
Anadolu/Getty

Where did these rules come from?

The laws protecting medical services in war emerged in response to the enormous suffering witnessed in 19th and 20th-century conflicts.

The first treaty protecting wounded soldiers and medical personnel dates back to 1864, when states adopted the original Geneva Convention.

Today, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols, together with a body of customary international law, form a near-universal legal framework binding all parties to conflict. This includes non-state armed groups.

These rules require warring parties to respect and protect medical personnel, facilities and the wounded and sick in all circumstances.

Why are attacks on health care increasing?

In January, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reported attacks on medical facilities and personnel had reached unprecedented levels around the world. In 2025 alone, there were 1,348 attacks on health-care facilities, double the number reported in 2024.

The law itself has not changed. But warfare has. Recent conflicts in South Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza, Iran and Lebanon are taking place in densely populated urban environments. Armed groups operate within complex civilian settings, often near hospitals and clinics.




Read more:
Attacks on health care during war are becoming more common, creating devastating ripple effects


This has shifted the narrative used by some warring parties. What were once described as “mistaken attacks” are now frequently justified on grounds of military necessity. States often claim insurgents are exploiting hospitals or ambulances to gain military advantage.

Israel, for example, has accused Hezbollah and Hamas of using medical infrastructure for military purposes.

Can hospitals lose their protection if fighters are hiding inside?

Yes. Hospitals can lose their special protection if they are used, outside their humanitarian role, to harm the enemy.

However, the law sets a very high threshold for this.

Medical personnel may carry light weapons for self-defence. Armed guards may be present to protect the facility. The presence of wounded fighters receiving treatment does not change this – protections still apply.

Protection may be lost only if hospitals are used for activities such as:

  • launching attacks

  • serving as an observation post

  • storing weapons

  • acting as a command or liaison centre

  • sheltering able-bodied combatants.

Even then, in cases of doubt hospitals must be presumed protected.

Importantly, verifying a hospital is being misused does not give parties a free licence to attack.

Before launching an attack on a compromised medical facility, international humanitarian law requires a warning to be issued, and reasonable time allowed for the misuse to stop.

If the warning is ignored, the attacking party must still comply with the core principles of international humanitarian law:

Proportionality

The expected military advantage must be weighed against the humanitarian consequences of the attack. This includes long-term impacts on health-care services. If the expected civilian harm would be excessive, the attack must be cancelled.

Precautions

All feasible precautions must be taken to minimise harm to patients and medical staff. This may include facilitating evacuations, planning for disruption to medical services, and helping restore health-care capacity after the attack.

Even when a facility loses protection, the wounded and sick must still be respected and protected.




Read more:
Health-care workers should not be a target. In Gaza, their detention and death affect the entire population


Are attacks on health care becoming normalised?

The UN Security Council, WHO, MSF and the OHCHR have expressed concern attacks on medical personnel and facilities – and the lack of accountability for them – are becoming dangerously normalised.

The legal framework protecting hospitals and health-care workers already exists.

States and armed groups must disseminate the law and train their military forces.

National legal systems are expected to investigate and prosecute those perpetrating war crimes against the wounded and sick, medical personnel and their facilities, or misusing protective emblems for military advantage.

In practice, however, investigating attacks during active conflict is extremely challenging. Territorial states are often unwilling or unable to pursue prosecutions.

Can we reverse this trend?

Open-source investigative groups such as Forensic Architecture, Bellingcat, Mnemonics and Airwars now play a growing role in preserving satellite imagery, geo-location data, and videos uploaded to social media. These allow independent fact-finding missions to conduct credible investigations. They may pursue accountability even when territorial states are unwilling or unable to do so.

Without such accountability, places meant to save lives during conflict may increasingly become targets themselves.

The Conversation

Shannon Bosch 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. Attacks on hospitals are surging in war zones. What do the laws of war say about protecting them? – https://theconversation.com/attacks-on-hospitals-are-surging-in-war-zones-what-do-the-laws-of-war-say-about-protecting-them-278414

All 5 fundamental units of life’s genetic code were just discovered in an asteroid sample

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kliti Grice, John Curtin Distinguished Professor of Organic and Isotope Geochemistry, Curtin University

Ryugu sample in its return capsule. JAXA

A new study reveals all five fundamental nucleobases – the molecular “letters” of life – have been detected in samples from the asteroid Ryugu.

Asteroid particles offer a glimpse into the chemical ingredients that may have helped kindle life on Earth. The Ryugu samples were returned from space in 2020 by Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s (JAXA) Hayabusa2 mission.

In 2023, an international team reported they had found one of the nucleobases in these samples – uracil. Now, in a study published in Nature Astronomy today, a team of Japanese scientists has confirmed all five nucleobases are present in this pristine asteroid material.

This means these ingredients for life may have been widespread throughout the Solar System in its early years.

Why look for nucleobases?

Nucleobases are nitrogen-containing organic molecules that form the “letters” of genetic information in DNA and RNA. The five main nucleobases are adenine and guanine (known as purines), as well as cytosine, thymine and uracil (known as pyrimidines).

These molecules combine with sugars and phosphates to yield nucleotides – the building blocks of genetic material. Without nucleobases, the genetic code that allows organisms to grow, reproduce and evolve would not exist.

How the five nucleobases make up RNA and DNA.
Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

By studying purines and pyrimidines in Ryugu samples, scientists can reconstruct the chemical history of primitive asteroids. In turn, this gives us a better understanding of how the building blocks of life may have been formed and existed across the Solar System.

Hayabusa2 delivered a total of 5.4 grams of pristine asteroid material. Researchers have to use ultra-clean lab conditions to avoid contaminating it. They extracted organic molecules using water and hydrocholoric acid, and then purified them for further detection.

They found all five nucleobases in the two Ryugu samples they analysed, in roughly similar amounts.

Microscope images of Ryugu samples collected from the first and second touchdown sites of the Hayabusa2 mission.
JAXA/JAMSTEC

Key components of genetic material – in space

The new results align with previous findings on space rocks. The Murchison meteorite that fell in Australia in 1969, and the Orgueil meteorite in France, 1864, have previously yielded a rich variety of organic molecules, including nucleobases.

Of course, meteorites that land on Earth can be contaminated by their journey and landing. But pristine samples from NASA’s mission to asteroid Bennu also yielded all five nucleobases in 2025.

Asteroids such as Ryugu, Bennu, and the parent body of the Orgueil meteorite are remnants of the early Solar System. They can preserve materials largely unchanged for about 4.5 billion years.

Interestingly, these asteroids show chemical differences. Murchison is enriched in purines, while Bennu and Orgueil contain more pyrimidines. It is thought this balance may be influenced by ammonia, a key molecule that can shape which nucleobases can form.

By peering into Ryugu’s relatively pristine samples and comparing them with meteorites like Murchison and Orgueil, researchers are tracing the cosmic journey of life’s probable molecular ingredients.

Their results suggest key components of genetic material may have formed in space and later delivered to the early Earth. In other words, the story of life on our planet may be deeply connected to the chemistry of such ancient asteroids.

A coloured view of 162173 Ryugu taken by JAXA’s space probe Hayabusa2 in 2018.
JAXA/Hayabusa2

A path for the ingredients of life

Together, these discoveries show that carbon-rich asteroids throughout the Solar System contain diverse prebiotic chemistry. However, the precise mixture of molecules – such as the balance between purines and pyrimidines – varies depending on the asteroid’s chemical environment and history.

Because the Ryugu samples were collected directly in space and protected from Earth’s contamination, they provide one of the clearest views of ancient Solar System chemistry.

The discovery of all five nucleobases on Ryugu suggests the molecular ingredients of life may have been already forming in space billions of years ago. Asteroids may have helped deliver those ingredients to the early Earth – making the origin of life part of a much larger cosmic chemical story.

The Conversation

Kliti Grice receives funding from the ARC.

ref. All 5 fundamental units of life’s genetic code were just discovered in an asteroid sample – https://theconversation.com/all-5-fundamental-units-of-lifes-genetic-code-were-just-discovered-in-an-asteroid-sample-278099

Is Israel running low on missile interceptors? How long can it withstand Iran’s retaliatory attacks?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By James Dwyer, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania

As the US–Israeli war with Iran enters its third week, reports are emerging that Israel is potentially running out of air defence interceptors due to Iran’s retaliatory attacks.

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and Israeli foreign minister have denied the reports. The government did reportedly approve around US$826 million (A$1.17 billion) for “urgent and essential defence procurement” over the weekend, however.

It’s difficult to gauge just how many interceptors are remaining, as the IDF does not disclose this type of information. But the possibility of this occurring was not entirely unexpected before Israel and the US began bombing Iran more than two weeks ago.

What are these interceptors?

Israel has a sophisticated and layered air defence system, capable of repelling attacks from ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, aircraft, drones and artillery shells at multiple altitudes, both inside and outside the atmosphere.

The famous “Iron Dome” makes up just one of these layers – it intercepts short-range artillery shells and rockets.

While there are technological differences between all of these systems, they are comprised of three basic elements:

  • the IDF personnel to operate them
  • the radar systems to detect incoming attacks
  • the interceptors themselves.

Israel has a new “Iron Beam” laser system that can be used to destroy missiles and drones, but the most common interceptors are surface-to-air missiles.

Ballistic missile defence interceptors, in particular, are incredibly complex and expensive weapons. The more capable they are, the more expensive they are to build. They are also limited in number. A sustained attack can quickly deplete even Israel’s stockpile.

Why might Israel be running low?

The 12-day war that Israel fought with Iran last year significantly depleted both its stockpile of anti-ballistic missiles, as well as that of its ally, the United States.

One Washington-based research centre calculated that Israel and the US intercepted 273 of 322 Iranian missiles they attempted to stop in the war, an 85% success rate.

Given a large number of these interceptors were used so recently, Israel and the US are unlikely to have fully replenished their stockpiles before launching the current war.

Another sign this is the case: the US is reportedly moving parts of its THAAD missile defence system from South Korea to the Middle East. This means the US will need to carry more of the defensive burden in the region, which could quickly deplete its own assets.

Ballistic missiles are also very difficult to intercept due to the speed and altitude they attain. Several interceptors are usually required to ensure each incoming missile is stopped. Iran is also using cluster munitions on some of its ballistic missiles, which further compounds the problem.

Iran has cheap, easy-to-replace drones, which it is using to try to overwhelm Israeli and American air defence systems, as well. These can also be launched from dispersed locations that are difficult to detect, making them harder to destroy on the ground than ballistic missiles.

Iran has so far launched more than 500 missiles and 2,000 drones since the war began.

Jet fighters can help defend against these drone attacks and have done so with great success, but the missiles they fire are also more expensive than the drones themselves. And other weapons platforms (such as the Iron Beam) are currently in limited supply.

The US and Israel are not the only ones reportedly running low on interceptors. The Persian Gulf states have also come under Iranian attack, and are burning through what defensive assets they have.

The Iranians have specifically targeted missile defence radars across the region, with reports they have successfully destroyed or damaged several systems.

All of this, of course, raises the question of why Israel and the US would start another conflict in the first place if their stockpiles were not fully replenished. There could be several potential reasons:

  • they had managed to rebuild their stockpiles faster than anyone anticipated, though this is unlikely

  • they were confident they could destroy a sufficient amount of Iran’s offensive weapons before they ran out of defensive munitions

  • they believed Iran would want to end the war sooner than it has.

How long can Iran keep this up?

There’s no way of knowing what Iran’s strategy is, besides extending the war as long as possible and creating chaos in the region and with global energy markets.

Some have speculated Iran may be deliberately holding back its more advanced missile technologies to use after the US and Israeli interceptors are depleted. But other analysts say there is no evidence this is the case. This would also be a risky strategy on Iran’s part.

One thing is certain, though: the US and Israel do have finite numbers of interceptors at their disposal. Iran, too, will not be able to keep up the same level of attacks indefinitely.

While the economic impacts of the war are placing significant pressure on all parties – and the world more widely – Iran seems to be in a better position for a longer conflict, given the costs involved for the US and Israel and their reluctance to commit to a potentially even more disastrous ground invasion.

The Conversation

James Dwyer 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. Is Israel running low on missile interceptors? How long can it withstand Iran’s retaliatory attacks? – https://theconversation.com/is-israel-running-low-on-missile-interceptors-how-long-can-it-withstand-irans-retaliatory-attacks-278404

¿Podrá Europa llegar a frenar la desinformación? Estos son sus 5 retos más urgentes

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Susana Sanz Caballero, Catedrática de Derecho Internacional Público y Cátedra Jean Monnet de la UE, Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera

Alexander56891/Shutterstock

El fenómeno de las fake news en la era digital no es nuevo. La desinformación ha existido siempre, desde el Imperio romano y en etapas posteriores como forma de condicionar e influir en conflictos sociales, rivalidades políticas y tensiones por el poder. Sin embargo, desde la irrupción de internet y, más recientemente, de los sistemas de inteligencia artificial (IA), ha crecido exponencialmente.

El contexto geoestratégico actual constituye un caldo de cultivo perfecto para que la desinformación en el entorno digital se reproduzca con mayor facilidad e impacto, convirtiéndola en un arma de doble filo.

La libertad de expresión es un derecho fundamental en democracia, pero su uso indebido puede convertirse en una herramienta para desestabilizar sistemas políticos y sociedades democráticas, dificultando la existencia de un ecosistema informativo veraz y fiable.

La respuesta legislativa de la Unión Europea

La desinformación se ha convertido en uno de los principales problemas regulatorios para la Unión Europea en su labor de protección de las garantías democráticas. Hoy, la desinformación se considera un tipo de “amenaza híbrida”, un concepto de difícil definición que remite a la idea de un uso combinado de instrumentos de naturaleza diversa (políticos, económicos, informáticos, etc.) con el objetivo de desestabilizar un Estado empleando métodos que a menudo pasan desapercibidos.

Frente a este problema, la búsqueda del equilibrio entre libertad de expresión y lucha contra la desinformación es una necesidad cada vez más acuciante. La Unión ha desplegado su maquinaria legislativa para desarrollar un marco normativo amplio que permite abordar este escenario con estas tres leyes principales:

  • Ley de Servicios Digitales (DSA): establece criterios de selección de contenidos y obligaciones de transparencia para las plataformas digitales.

  • Ley de Mercados Digitales (DMA): busca garantizar un sector digital competitivo y justo, así como la seguridad de los usuarios en línea.

  • Ley de Medios (EMFA): establece el marco común comunitario para proteger la libertad, el pluralismo y la independencia editorial de los medios.

Contenidos manipulados o dependencia tecnológica

Aunque el esfuerzo de la Unión por regular esta cuestión es muy bien recibido, su aplicación práctica no está exenta de desafíos como estos cinco:

  1. Crecimiento masivo de contenidos manipulados: la facilidad para crear y difundir información ha degradado la integridad del ecosistema informativo, destacando el auge de deepfakes e información en zonas grises que requieren de la asistencia de verificadores para comprobar su veracidad.

  2. Falta de neutralidad y captura informativa: los algoritmos no son neutrales, priorizan el sensacionalismo para maximizar beneficios, generando una “captura informativa” donde las plataformas deciden qué contenidos llegan a los usuarios (la “prohibición en la sombra” o shadowbanning).

  3. Privatización de moderación de contenidos: actualmente, el 99 % de las decisiones de eliminación de contenidos las toman empresas privadas bajo sus propios términos, mientras que la intervención judicial es mínima (0,001 %).

  4. Desinformación como guerra híbrida: actores extranjeros utilizan la manipulación informativa como herramienta de desestabilización geopolítica y polarización social.

  5. Vulnerabilidad ciudadana y dependencia tecnológica: la exposición repetida a narrativas falsas aumenta la probabilidad de creer en ellas, especialmente ante la falta de infraestructuras digitales propias de la UE.

Una buena noticia: hay luz al final del túnel

Pero no todo son malas noticias. Aunque este fenómeno se ha instaurado con fuerza, existen vías de solución que invitan a cierto optimismo:

  • Trazabilidad de contenidos generados por IA. De conformidad con análisis especializados sobre ecosistema mediático híbrido, es vital fomentar contenidos basados en evidencias y mejorar técnicamente el etiquetado de contenidos generados por IA para proteger el discurso cívico.

  • Imposición de obligaciones estrictas de transparencia que exijan a las empresas explicar cómo funcionan sus sistemas de recomendaciones (feeds) y el diseño transparente de estructuras digitales.

  • Reforzar el derecho del usuario a la información sobre los motivos de restricciones de contenido y asegurar la independencia de los reguladores nacionales para evitar el riesgo de autocensura (chilling effect).

  • Aplicar sanciones contra entidades responsables, suspender licencias de medios de propaganda estatal, fortalecer la cooperación estratégica entre instituciones, actores privados y la ciudadanía. Las plataformas digitales, especialmente durante periodos electorales, deberían indicar expresamente si el contenido ha sido patrocinado por Estados terceros.

  • Implementar planes de alfabetización mediática en la formación reglada, siguiendo modelos de éxito (Finlandia, Estonia) e invertir en soberanía tecnológica europea con la creación de centros de datos a escala europea.

Combatir la desinformación no depende solo de contar con un marco normativo estable. Reforzar la transparencia, limitar las injerencias políticas y combatir la manipulación informativa requiere voluntad política y una estrecha coordinación entre actores estatales y no estatales: operadores económicos, plataformas digitales, medios de comunicación, organismos reguladores, la comunidad académica y la sociedad civil.

Restaurar la confianza e integridad de los sistemas de información es esencial para frenar la desinformación en Europa.

The Conversation

El equipo de investigación Rule of Law Crisis in the EU de la UCHCEU recibe financiación del Proyecto I+D+i Nacional del MICINN: PID2021-126765NB-I00 y el proyecto GVA: CIAICO/2024/191

Almudena Del Castillo Santamaría recibe fondos del Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades a través de la convocatoria FPU del año 2023 para la realización de su tesis doctoral que se inscribe en el proyecto I+D+i nacional del MICINN: PID2021-126765NB-I00 y el proyecto financiado por la GVA: CIAICO/2024/191

Enrique Roger Belloch y Zitan Peng Hao no reciben salarios, ni ejercen labores de consultoría, ni poseen acciones, ni reciben financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y han declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del puesto académico citado.

ref. ¿Podrá Europa llegar a frenar la desinformación? Estos son sus 5 retos más urgentes – https://theconversation.com/podra-europa-llegar-a-frenar-la-desinformacion-estos-son-sus-5-retos-mas-urgentes-277433

Crear empresas desde la universidad, la mejor manera de fomentar el emprendimiento

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Guillermo José Navarro del Toro, Research Professor at the University of Guadalajara – Centro Universitario de Los Altos, Universidad de Guadalajara, Universidad de Guadalajara

Xavier Lorenzo/Shutterstock

Cada semestre recibo decenas de estudiantes en mi facultad con ideas que podrían transformarse en empresas reales. Cuatro años después, la mayoría gradúa con un título y esas mismas ideas archivadas en carpetas que nadie volverá a abrir.

Como profesor en la Universidad de Guadalajara, he visto esta paradoja repetirse durante años. No es falta de talento. Es que seguimos enseñando emprendimiento como si fuera historia medieval: datos para memorizar, teorías para el examen, cero aplicación real.

Mientras debatimos en academias si actualizar el temario, algunas instituciones llevan décadas logrando que sus estudiantes combinen la teoría y la práctica, creando empresas al tiempo que estudian cómo funcionan: los estadounidenses MIT (Massachussets Institute of Technology), cuyo ecosistema de emprendimiento académico se articula desde el Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship; Babson College, líder global en educación emprendedora con su enfoque de Entrepreneurial Thought & Action; UC Berkeley, a través de Berkeley SkyDeck, donde los proyectos académicos se convierten en startups; y Harvard, mediante el Harvard Innovation Labs, que integra cursos, mentorías y creación de empresas. En Finlandia, la Aalto University es reconocida por su modelo universidad–startup y el ecosistema Aalto Ventures Program.

La diferencia no es, o no únicamente, presupuesto ni ubicación. Es arquitectura.

Cuando la teoría se encuentra con la realidad

El Centro Universitario de los Altos (CUAltos) de la Universidad de Guadalajara implementó desde 2021 algo que debería ser obvio pero resulta revolucionario: convertir cada asignatura en una herramienta para construir proyectos reales.

En lugar de estudiar contabilidad con ejercicios inventados, los estudiantes registran transacciones de sus propios emprendimientos. En vez de memorizar las 4 P del marketing (producto, precio, punto de venta y promoción), diseñan estrategias para adquirir sus primeros cien clientes reales. Cuando estudian derecho empresarial, redactan los contratos que necesitarán para constituir legalmente sus empresas.

El CUAltos creó un repositorio de difusión del emprendimiento que documenta estos proyectos. No son simulaciones académicas. Son empresas operando en mercados reales, con clientes pagando y estudiantes aprendiendo más en un semestre que en cuatro años de clases tradicionales.




Leer más:
¿Estamos enseñando suficiente emprendimiento digital?


Tres ingredientes que cambian todo

Después de observar casos exitosos en México, España y otros países, identifiqué tres elementos que separan el teatro académico de la transformación real:

  1. La integración curricular total. Cuando Juan de Antonio fundó Cabify mientras estudiaba un MBA en Stanford, cada asignatura contribuía directamente a su proyecto. Hoy Cabify opera en más de noventa ciudades y factura 800 millones de euros. No esperó a graduarse. Construyó desde el primer día.

    El Tecnológico de Monterrey lleva esto al extremo con su modelo Tec21, donde todo el programa se estructura alrededor de retos empresariales reales. Los estudiantes no estudian disciplinas aisladas, resuelven problemas complejos que exigen conocimiento de finanzas, marketing, operaciones y tecnología simultáneamente.

  2. Mentoría con cicatrices. Las mejores universidades no contratan solo profesores con doctorados. Buscan emprendedores que fracasaron y reconstruyeron. Alguien que perdió una empresa te enseña más en una conversación que diez papers académicos.

    Por ejemplo, Alicia Asín y David Gascón fundaron Libelium con apenas 3 000 euros nada más licenciarse en la Universidad de Zaragoza. Fracasaron repetidamente. Pivotaron tres veces. Casi se quedan sin dinero dos veces. Hoy lideran mercados globales del Internet de las Cosas en 120 países. David fue reconocido como Innovador del Año por la revista MIT Technology Review en 2012, y la Real Academia de Ingeniería lo distinguió como investigador destacado en 2018. Alicia fue la primera mujer en recibir el premio Joven Emprendedor Nacional de CEAJE en 2014. Su conocimiento sobre qué hacer cuando todo falla no viene de libros. Viene de sobrevivir.

  3. Consecuencias reales. El Tecnológico de Monterrey conecta estudiantes con capital genuino desde primer semestre mediante colaboraciones con fondos como FEMSA Ventures. Cuando uno presenta ante inversores que controlan dinero real, la investigación de mercado no puede ser superficial.

    ESADE estructura competiciones con financiamiento real que los equipos pueden usar inmediatamente. Esta inyección de consecuencias transforma comportamientos. Los estudiantes dejan de optimizar para aprobar exámenes y empiezan a optimizar para resultados reales.




Leer más:
La importancia del emprendimiento en las universidades de América Latina


Lo que realmente están aprendiendo

Incluso cuando los proyectos fracasan comercialmente, estos estudiantes desarrollan competencias que graduados tradicionales tardan años en adquirir.

Por ejemplo, Juan Urdiales y Felipe Navío fundaron Jobandtalen mientras estudiaban en la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. La empresa creció hasta convertirse en líder de empleo temporal en Europa y Latinoamérica, recaudó más de 500 millones de dólares y alcanzó una valoración superior a 2 000 millones. Opera en más de diez países.

No tenían experiencia corporativa previa, tenían algo mejor: capacidad de tomar decisiones bajo incertidumbre, construir equipos funcionales, gestionar conflictos cuando los intereses no están alineados y pivotar rápidamente cuando los datos contradicen sus hipótesis.

El mercado laboral refleja esto. Las empresas tecnológicas priorizan candidatos con proyectos demostrables sobre aquellos con credenciales impecables pero sin experiencia ejecutiva real.

La oportunidad que estamos perdiendo

Cada año, miles de estudiantes talentosos entran a nuestras facultades en México. La mayoría los procesamos mediante el mismo sistema que lleva décadas produciendo resultados mediocres: clases magistrales, exámenes memorísticos, proyectos simulados.

Cuatro años después salen con títulos, deudas y sus ideas archivadas. Buscarán empleos en empresas creadas por gente que nunca perdió tiempo en aulas desconectadas de la realidad.

En el CUAltos estamos intentando cambiar esto. Los catorce programas académicos, que se imparten llevan contenidos de emprendimiento, de manera que cualquier médico, dentista o abogado que egresa sabe cómo comenzar un negocio, cuánto cobrar, cómo vender y cómo posicionarse en el mercado. No con más teoría sino con más práctica. No con simulaciones sino con consecuencias reales. No preparando empleados sino formando creadores.

Esta transformación no requiere presupuestos millonarios. Requiere valentía para demoler lo que “siempre hemos hecho así” y reconstruir desde cimientos completamente nuevos.

The Conversation

Guillermo José Navarro del Toro 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. Crear empresas desde la universidad, la mejor manera de fomentar el emprendimiento – https://theconversation.com/crear-empresas-desde-la-universidad-la-mejor-manera-de-fomentar-el-emprendimiento-235024

Con la gasolina disparada, correr sale mucho más caro de lo que parece

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Juan Antonio Aguilar Saavedra, Investigador científico del CSIC en física teórica de partículas elementales, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)

Coches circulando por una carretera nocturna sinuosa en Malta Goinyk Production/Shutterstock

Intentar emular a Fernando Alonso en los desplazamientos diarios de casa al trabajo no es una buena idea. Porque aparte de generar más estrés y más situaciones de riesgo, afecta a nuestro bolsillo más de lo que podríamos pensar.

Es evidente que conduciendo más rápido se llega antes, aunque la diferencia puede ser pequeña cuando el tráfico está condicionado por atascos, semáforos, etc. Sin embargo, conduciendo más rápido visitamos la gasolinera más a menudo. Entonces, ¿cuánto tiempo se gana en realidad? ¿Cuánto sube el consumo? ¿Merece realmente la pena apostar por la velocidad?

Consumo frente a velocidad

El consumo de combustible depende de la velocidad de una forma bastante simple de entender. Por un lado, el funcionamiento de los motores de combustión, incluso con el coche completamente parado, consume. Así, si nos desplazamos a una velocidad muy baja, del orden de 20 km/h, el gasto será grande en relación al espacio recorrido.

Por otro lado, la fricción con el aire crece con el cuadrado de la velocidad, por lo que conducir por encima de los 100 km/h también implica un consumo considerable. Además, están las pérdidas por rodadura, prácticamente independientes de la velocidad y sujetas a la distancia recorrida.

Combinando todos los factores, el consumo óptimo se obtiene a una velocidad que, en función del coche, está entre los 60-90 km/h.

La Agencia Europea de Medio Ambiente usa el modelo matemático COPERT para calcular las curvas de consumo de coches típicos, tanto de gasolina como híbridos y otros combustibles. En nuestro estudio, realizado específicamente para este artículo, hemos hecho los cálculos para un coche híbrido de tamaño medio/grande.

Consumo en función de la velocidad para un coche híbrido medio/grande según COPERT.
J. A. Aguilar y Cristina Álvarez.

Cuestión de física

Los valores de referencia son representativos de una gran variedad de coches, tanto berlinas como SUV. En cualquier caso, aquí el dato de interés no es el valor absoluto del consumo, que para nuestro coche particular puede ser menor. El factor clave es cómo aumenta el consumo a grandes velocidades. Este es un comportamiento universal, basado en leyes físicas.

Por otro lado, está el sobreconsumo asociado a un estilo de conducción más agresivo, con aceleraciones y frenadas. Esta componente penaliza el consumo a mayor velocidad, sin disminuir significativamente el tiempo de desplazamiento. Por eso, ignoraremos en nuestros cálculos ese efecto, que por otra parte es imposible de modelar.

Estudiando trayectos reales

Queremos estudiar el impacto de la velocidad en situaciones como las de miles de personas que diariamente se desplazan en coche. Para ello, hemos tomado como ejemplo cinco trayectos reales desde casa hasta el trabajo en la Comunidad de Madrid. Los trayectos comprenden tramos urbanos –en Alcobendas, Madrid, Móstoles, Las Rozas, Tres Cantos y Vallecas– y tramos en las carreteras A3, A5, A6, M30, M40, y M607 de distinta consideración. Como ejemplo, la fracción de recorrido en carretera con límite de velocidad superior a 90 km/h varía entre el 73 % y el 43 %.

Trayectos considerados en este estudio.
Juan A. Aguilar y Cristina Álvarez.

Hemos calculado las rutas usando Google Maps y hemos obtenido información de los límites de velocidad a través de OpenStreetMap. Como resultado, para cada una de las cinco rutas, preparamos una tabla que agrupa tramos por límite máximo de velocidad.

Ejemplo de rutas consideradas.
J. A. Aguilar y Cristina Álvarez.

Estos límites nos proporcionarán valores de referencia para la velocidad en cada tramo. Así, conocida la longitud de cada tramo y su velocidad de referencia, un cálculo simple nos permite calcular el tiempo total empleado en el desplazamiento –suponiendo el caso ideal de ausencia de atascos y semáforos–.

Además, usando los datos de consumo típico, podemos calcular también el consumo de gasolina, suponiendo que existe una velocidad constante.

¿Más rápido es mejor?

A continuación, investigamos cuánto tiempo se ahorra desplazándose más rápido y cuánto más se consume. Aquí, hacemos una suposición razonable:

  • Para los tramos urbanos con límite hasta 50 km/h, siempre consideraremos velocidad igual al límite legalmente establecido. Esta simplificación es necesaria porque, al aumentar la velocidad, también aumentan las pérdidas por frenada (algo frecuente en entorno urbano) y, como se ha mencionado, es imposible modelar adecuadamente estas variaciones.

  • Para los tramos en carretera, consideraremos dos casos: velocidades 20 % mayores al límite y velocidades 40 % mayores. Es decir, si el límite está en 100 km/h, supondremos velocidades de 120 km/h y 140 km/h, respectivamente. Lo cual está bastante en línea con lo observado diariamente.

Ahorro de tiempo frente a consumo extra a mayor velocidad.
J. A. Aguilar y Cristina Álvarez.

Los resultados no dejan lugar a dudas: pisar el acelerador sale muy caro. Para ahorrar un 10 % de tiempo gastamos ¡30 % más de combustible! Y esto es similar para todos los trayectos. Con una velocidad 20 % mayor al límite, el gasto de combustible triplica al ahorro de tiempo en los trayectos 1, 2, 3 y 5 y casi lo quintuplica en el trayecto 4. Y, para una velocidad 40 % mayor, las cifras de consumo se disparan.

Por otro lado, si no apuramos el límite de velocidad, el ahorro relativo de combustible es bastante comparable al incremento relativo del tiempo de viaje. La gran disparidad entre ambos solo aparece a velocidades elevadas.


Rui Lourenco / Unsplash., CC BY-SA

Pisar el acelerador hace daño al bolsillo y al planeta

Naturalmente, los detalles de consumo varían de un modelo de automóvil a otro, dependiendo del motor, la aerodinámica, el combustible y otras características. No obstante, los resultados cualitativos obtenidos aquí son extrapolables a coches de gasolina o diésel de diversos tamaños. Como hemos señalado, el incremento de consumo a gran velocidad es exponencial y está basado en leyes físicas. Por tanto, la conclusión de que el gasto adicional excede con creces el ahorro de tiempo tiene un carácter bastante general.

Asimismo, pisar el acelerador también sale muy caro para el planeta. Las emisiones de CO₂ y otros gases son proporcionales al consumo. Por lo que ahorrar unos pocos minutos se traduce en una contaminación bastante mayor.

En términos generales, como sabemos, la huella de emisiones por viajero es inferior en transporte público que en coche privado, y más aún en áreas urbanas. Encima, cuando el vehículo viaja con un solo ocupante, este consumo y esas emisiones recaen íntegramente sobre un único viajero, empeorando aún más el balance.

Para esos casos en que el uso del coche es inevitable, no deberíamos olvidar que la velocidad no compensa, ni para el bolsillo ni para el planeta.

The Conversation

Las personas firmantes no son asalariadas, ni consultoras, ni poseen acciones, ni reciben financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y han declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado anteriormente.

ref. Con la gasolina disparada, correr sale mucho más caro de lo que parece – https://theconversation.com/con-la-gasolina-disparada-correr-sale-mucho-mas-caro-de-lo-que-parece-275334

Por qué un aula sin conflictos no siempre es mejor para el bienestar docente

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Magdalena Holgado Herrero, Psicología Social, del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, Universidad de Cádiz

Fotograma de la película _Mentes peligrosas_ (1995), donde Michelle Pfeiffer encarnaba a una profesora en una clase conflictiva. Filmafinnity

Trabajar en un entorno conflictivo es uno de los factores más frecuentemente citados como causante de estrés laboral o síndrome de estar quemado. En el caso de los docentes, que el entorno escolar no sea armonioso y existan tensiones supone, comprensiblemente, una dificultad añadida al desarrollo de la docencia.

Por eso es tan sorprendente el resultado de nuestro reciente estudio: el profesorado con una gran capacidad de resiliencia no solo consigue relegar la tensión interpersonal a un segundo plano, sino que la convierte en un catalizador de satisfacción al transformar los obstáculos en retos significativos.

Basándonos en una muestra de 220 profesionales de la enseñanza de la comarca del Campo de Gibraltar en diferentes etapas (de infantil a formación profesional) hemos podido determinar que, aunque el conflicto suele reducir el bienestar, la resiliencia actúa como un factor determinante que transforma esta relación.

La paradoja de la calma

Estos resultados indican que un lugar de trabajo sin conflictos no siempre es el paraíso para el bienestar de los docentes. Para una persona altamente resiliente, un entorno de conformidad total puede resultar desmotivador. No proporciona el debate saludable y el crecimiento a través de los retos que estos profesionales anhelan para sentirse verdaderamente comprometidos.

Sorprendentemente, los niveles más altos de felicidad se registraron entre el personal docente con alta resiliencia que desarrollaba su labor en contextos donde los conflictos iban en aumento. Para estos profesionales de la educación, la tensión actúa como combustible, activa su sentido de la autoeficacia y la competencia, demostrando que cuentan con las herramientas necesarias para navegar por aguas difíciles.




Leer más:
La competencia emocional docente: ¿moda, mito o necesidad?


Bienestar y resiliencia

Tener una resiliencia extraordinaria en un entorno sin retos significativos, en lugar de aumentar la felicidad puede hacer que el bienestar se estanque, pues la fortaleza permanece infrautilizada.

El hallazgo más relevante de nuestro estudio es que el camino hacia la felicidad no es una línea recta impulsada por la resiliencia. Al aplicar las teorías de “demasiado de algo bueno” (too much of a good thing: TMGT) y “muy poco de algo malo” (too little of a bad thing: TLBT), observamos fenómenos que matizan las premisas habituales sobre la gestión de centros educativos.

La primera de ellas sugiere que factores psicológicos positivos como la propia resiliencia pueden volverse contraproducentes o perder su eficacia cuando alcanzan niveles extremos. Por el contrario, la teoría TLBT plantea que ciertos elementos tradicionalmente negativos, como el conflicto funcional, pueden empezar a generar efectos perjudiciales precisamente cuando su nivel es demasiado bajo.

En ambos casos, esta correlación sigue una trayectoria en forma de ‘U’: existe un punto de inflexión donde el exceso de una virtud o la ausencia total de un desafío (como un entorno de conformidad absoluta) dejan de sumar bienestar para empezar a restarlo.

¿Cómo lo medimos?

Para descubrir estos patrones en el contexto de la labora docente, nuestro estudio utilizó una serie de evaluaciones psicológicas validadas, diseñadas para captar la realidad diaria del aula más allá de los planes de estudio. Nos centramos en tres pilares:

  • Conflicto relacional: utilizando la escala de Jehn, identificamos esos momentos específicos de fricción, los choques de personalidad y las tensiones emocionales que pueden hacer que el ambiente en la sala de profesores sea tenso.

  • Felicidad personal en el trabajo: no nos limitamos a preguntar si los profesores estaban contentos. Consideramos la felicidad como un motor multidimensional alimentado por cuatro componentes: disfrute genuino, compromiso profundo, estado de flujo durante las tareas y afecto positivo general dentro de la escuela.

  • Resiliencia: se midió como el factor de recuperación, la elasticidad psicológica que permite a un educador recuperarse de los reveses y adaptarse a los cambios repentinos.

Los datos revelaron una historia convincente: mientras que el conflicto en ausencia de resiliencia es innegablemente devastador, la fusión de una alta resiliencia y un entorno dinámico (incluso tenso) crea un estado de florecimiento. Esto sugiere que, para una mente preparada, un entorno desafiante no es una barrera para el crecimiento, sino el terreno en el que este echa raíces.




Leer más:
¿Podemos evitar que el profesorado se ‘queme’?


Eliminar conflicto o mejorar resiliencia

Así, el objetivo de responsables políticos y juntas escolares no debe ser eliminar cualquier atisbo de tensión de nuestras escuelas. Un entorno estéril y libre de conflictos podría, de hecho, frenar el crecimiento de nuestros educadores más capaces.

En cambio, la clave está en dotar a los profesores de las herramientas psicológicas que necesitan. Cuando la tormenta llegue inevitablemente, un profesor resiliente no solo sabrá cómo sobrevivir a las olas, sino que encontrará una profunda sensación de satisfacción y propósito al navegar con éxito a través de ellas.

Desarrollar la resiliencia

Estos hallazgos ponen de relieve la necesidad de estrategias matizadas, que permitan cultivar la resiliencia más allá de la gestión del estrés. Dado que es una habilidad adaptable y no un rasgo innato, las instituciones educativas deberían integrarla en el desarrollo profesional continuo de todo el personal docente.

Entender los conflictos interpersonales como “retos colaborativos” y crear entornos propicios para el diálogo constructivo puede ayudar a impulsar la innovación y la cohesión del equipo.

The Conversation

Magdalena Holgado Herrero recibe fondos de la Fundación Campus Tecnológico de Algeciras, cofinanciada mediante la subvención concedida por la Consejería de Universidad, Investigación e Innovación de la Junta de Andalucía.

Dara Hernández Roque recibe fondos de de Fundación Campus Tecnológico de Algeciras, como investigadora académica del Campus Universitario de la Bahía de Algeciras (Universidad de Cádiz).

María José Foncubierta Rodríguez ha recibido fondos de Fundación Campus Tecnológico de Algeciras, como investigadora académica del Campus Universitario de la Bahía de Algeciras (Universidad de Cádiz).

ref. Por qué un aula sin conflictos no siempre es mejor para el bienestar docente – https://theconversation.com/por-que-un-aula-sin-conflictos-no-siempre-es-mejor-para-el-bienestar-docente-273848