MIL-OSI – Page 365 – MIL Submissions Engine

March 17, 2026

Researchers develop biodegradable, plant-based packaging from natural fibers – new research

Source: The Conversation – USA – By J. Carson Meredith, Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

Plastic packaging fills up landfills – engineers are working on a bio-based alternative that could replace the kind shown here. tuk69tuk/iStock via Getty Images

Jie Wu, an engineering graduate student, was studying a type of striking white beetle found in Southeast Asia and attempting to figure out how to mimic its brilliant color when an unexpected discovery upended the experiment.

Jie and I had been hoping to identify naturally occurring whitening pigments that could be used in paper and paints. The beetle’s white exoskeleton is made from a compound called chitin, which is a type of carbohydrate – one that is also commonly found in crab and lobster shells.

First, Jie extracted chitin nanofibers from crab shells obtained from food waste that are chemically the same as those found in the white beetles. But instead of creating a white material as intended, Jie produced dense, transparent films. The nanofibers more readily assembled in tightly packed films than in the porous structures Jie desired.

Two white beetles — An attempt to mimic the striking white color of *Cyphochilus* beetles led researchers to a unique discovery.
Olimpia1lli/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-ND

On a whim, Jie measured the rate at which oxygen passed through the film. The result was astonishing: The barrier allowed less oxygen through than many existing packaging plastics.

That serendipitous finding in 2014 shifted my team of engineering students’ focus from color to packaging. We asked whether natural materials could rival the performance of common plastics. In the years since, our team has used this discovery to create biodegradable films that offer a more sustainable and effective alternative to plastic packaging.

Challenges of plastic packaging

Plastic packaging is commonly used to protect food, pharmaceuticals and personal care products. These plastics keep out moisture and oxygen from the air, so products stay fresh and safe.

Most packaging has several layers that work together to keep air out, but these layers hinder reuse and recycling efforts. As a result, most of this plastic barrier packaging is discarded to landfills as single-use materials.

Many researchers have sought alternatives that are renewable, biodegradable or recyclable, yet just as effective. At Georgia Tech, my team of students and post-docs has spent more than a decade tackling this problem. This journey began with that beetle.

Building a better barrier

Chitin is widely available in food waste and mushrooms, and it is used in products such as water filters and wound dressing. However, our early attempts to scale up the film technology based on the beetle-inspired experiment failed.

In 2018, the team made an important leap forward by using spray coating to create layers of chitin and cellulose nanomaterials. Cellulose, like chitin, is a carbohydrate polymer – a chain of repeating carbohydrate units – and it is obtained from plants. These abundant natural materials have opposite electric charges, which led to better barrier performance when we combined them than either material alone.

In this approach, the team sprayed down a layer of chitin, followed by a layer of cellulose. The opposite charges between the chitin and cellulose created a long-range attraction between them that binds the layers to create a dense interface.

Later, in collaboration with Meisha Shofner, a materials scientist, and Tequila Harris, a mechanical engineer, other students showed these coatings could be applied with scalable, roll-to-roll techniques. Roll-to-roll coating methods are preferred in industry because the coatings are applied continuously to large rolls of a substrate material, such as paper or other biodegradable plastics.

Roll-to-roll coating allows manufacturers to easily apply thin layers of coating to a base material, called a substrate.

Still, humidity posed a major challenge, limiting any real-world applications. Moisture swelled the film, allowing more oxygen to sneak through.

Then came another breakthrough. In 2024, another collaborator, Natalie Stingelin, and I discovered that two common food components resisted water vapor when combined: carboxymethylcellulose – which is found in ice cream, for example – and citric acid.

The result was a film that hindered the transmission of moisture. The citric acid reacted with the cellulose to form cross-links, which are chemical junctions that bind the cellulose molecules. Once bound, they reduced the film’s moisture uptake.

We integrated this new discovery with the prior work by combining the citric acid and cellulose, and then casting this mixture as a freestanding film by coating it onto a substrate, such as chitin.

However, that formulation did not have strong oxygen barrier properties because it did not contain the highly crystalline cellulose nanomaterials from our first film. Our team’s most recent achievement, from October 2025, combines the above innovations. As a result, we’ve created a bio-based film that is an excellent barrier to both oxygen and moisture.

A diagram showing a rectangle representing a biodegradable film, with an arrow deflecting off of it showing how it keeps out water vapor and oxygen. On the right is the film. — An oxygen and water vapor barrier film composed of blended cellulose and chitin.
J. Carson Meredith

Scaling up production

When cast into thin films, these components self-organize into a dense structure that resists swelling with water vapor. Tests showed that even at 80% humidity the film matched or outperformed common packaging plastics.

The materials are renewable, biodegradable and compostable. Our team has filed several patent applications, and we are working with industry partners to develop specific packaging uses.

One challenge that applications face is a limited supply of the bio-based components compared to the high volume of conventional plastics. Like any new material, it would take time for manufacturers to develop supply chains as the films begin to be used.

For example, the market demand for purified chitin is small right now, as it is used in niche applications, such as wound dressings and water filtration. Due to its variety of uses, packaging could increase that market demand.

The next challenge is scaling up from experimental films to industrial production, which would likely take several years. The team is exploring roll-to-roll coating techniques and working with industry partners to integrate these materials into existing packaging lines.

Policy and consumer demand will also play a role. As governments push for bans on single-use plastics and companies set sustainability targets, bio-based films could become part of the solution.

The story of this breakthrough reminds me that science often advances through unexpected results. From a failed attempt to mimic a beetle’s color to a promising alternative to plastic, this research shows how curiosity can lead to solutions for some of our biggest challenges.

Carson Meredith received funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, Mars, Nestle, Winpak, One.Five, and Dow. This technology has pending patents.

– ref. Researchers develop biodegradable, plant-based packaging from natural fibers – new research – https://theconversation.com/researchers-develop-biodegradable-plant-based-packaging-from-natural-fibers-new-research-271262

March 17, 2026

Iran’s nuclear materials and equipment remain a danger in an active war zone

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Matthew Bunn, Professor of the Practice of Energy, National Security and Foreign Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

A satellite photograph shows construction work and buildings at a site known as Pickaxe Mountain, which is believed to store Iranian nuclear material and equipment. Satellite image (c) 2026 Vantor via Getty Images

Before launching his war on Iran, President Donald Trump said his most important goal was that Iran would “never have a nuclear weapon.” Yet it is not clear what, if anything, his administration has planned for dealing with Iran’s stock of enriched uranium that could be used to make nuclear bombs – or its remaining deeply buried nuclear facilities and the nuclear equipment that might be in them, or hidden elsewhere.

U.S. and Israeli strikes in June 2025 seriously damaged Iran’s major nuclear facilities and killed several prominent scientists associated with the country’s nuclear program. However, contrary to Trump’s claim that the Iranian nuclear program had been “completely obliterated,” it appears that Iran had stored much or all of its enriched uranium in deep tunnels that were not destroyed.

The Trump administration’s demand, just two days before the attacks began, that Iran export its enriched uranium stocks represented a tacit acknowledgment that Iran’s government still had control of this material or could get access to it.

So, as airstrikes on Iran continue, an unclear fate faces several elements of Iran’s nuclear program, including:

Its stock of enriched uranium.
Its centrifuges for enriching more uranium, and parts for more centrifuges.
Any equipment it may have for turning enriched uranium into metal, shaping it into nuclear weapons components and taking other weapons-assembly steps.
The documents and expertise from its past nuclear weapons program.
Its as-yet-intact nuclear facilities that are deep underground.

I have been studying steps to stop the spread of nuclear weapons – including managing the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program – for decades. My conclusion is that if all these capabilities remain in place, the war will have accomplished little in reducing Iran’s nuclear capability, while likely increasing the government’s belief that it needs a nuclear weapon to defend itself.

A map of Iran showing where key nuclear activities occur. — A map shows the locations in Iran of various activities related to the country’s nuclear weapons program.
Ufuk Celal Guzel/Anadolu via Getty Images

Where could Iran’s uranium be?

An overhead view shows buildings, roads and fences. — Satellite images are a key way other nations get a look at Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon.
Satellite image (c) 2025 Vantor via Getty Images

The most immediate concern is roughly 970 pounds (441 kilograms) of highly enriched uranium containing 60% of the U-235 isotope that is relatively easy to split. That’s what Iran was believed to have before the summer 2025 bombings, and much of it reportedly survived those strikes.

Over 440 pounds (200 kilograms) of it is reportedly stored in deep underground tunnels near Isfahan. Other stocks of this material are thought to be in a deep underground facility near Natanz known as Pickaxe Mountain, and in Fordow, one of the sites bombed in summer 2025.

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, has reportedly acknowledged that the Isfahan tunnels are too deep to destroy with bunker-buster bombs like those used on the underground Fordow facility last summer. Pickaxe Mountain, under granite, would be at least as challenging a target.

What could the uranium be used for?

With just 100 centrifuges, Iran could further enrich the 60% enriched material to be 90% or more U-235 in a few weeks. That is the concentration needed for the nuclear weapon design that Iran was working on in the secret nuclear weapons program it largely stopped in late 2003.

Even without further enrichment, the 60% enriched material could be used in a bomb, either exploding with less power or using more material and explosives.

Beyond Iran using this material itself, there are other concerns. Nobody knows who might get it if Iran’s government collapses. Some lower-level people managing it might decide to try to sell it as part of trying to save themselves from the current crisis, as happened after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Government studies have warned that even a sophisticated terrorist group might be able to make a crude nuclear bomb if it had the needed uranium.

Matthew Bunn explains how nuclear bombs work.

Could it be removed peacefully?

One possibility is that the current Iranian government, or a future one, might be willing to cooperate or at least acquiesce in getting rid of the country’s nuclear material. The existing Iranian government reportedly offered to blend it down to a lower concentration in the negotiations that Trump ended by attacking Iran in February 2026.

Highly enriched uranium has been removed from many cooperative countries over the years. One early example was Project Sapphire, in 1994, in which U.S. teams worked with Kazakhstan to fly some 1,280 pounds (580 kilograms) of highly enriched uranium to safe storage in Tennessee. Similar efforts have removed tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium from scores of sites around the world, removing the risk that terrorists could get hold of that material.

Matthew Bunn explains how highly enriched uranium and plutonium are produced.

Could it be captured?

Without cooperation, and with the uranium in tunnels too deep to destroy from the air, the only other option for eliminating them could be sending in a team of either U.S. or Israeli soldiers and experts while the war continues.

U.S. special forces troops have long trained with federal scientists and experts to disable or secure adversaries’ nuclear weapons and material. But it wouldn’t be easy: Mark Esper, a defense secretary in Trump’s first term, has warned that actually doing so in Iran would take a large force and be “very perilous.”

Trump has said he would only do so if Iran was “so decimated that they wouldn’t be able to fight on the ground level.”

A young girl and a man in a black robe and white turban stand next to tubes decorated to look like missiles and centrifuges. — Scale models of Iranian ballistic missiles and centrifuges are displayed in Tehran in November 2025.
Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images

If nuclear materials were captured, what then?

Iran’s nuclear material is in the form of uranium hexafluoride, in containers somewhat similar to scuba tanks.

The simplest but messiest option would be to blow up the containers, with explosives attached to each one. The uranium hexafluoride would deposit on the walls, floors and rubble in the tunnels, making it very difficult to ever recover and use. But the tunnels would then be contaminated and unusable, and the team would need to be careful about its own safety.

For a neater option, the material could hypothetically be packaged and flown out, as in the cooperative approach. But there are probably dozens of containers, collectively weighing tons, in multiple locations deep inside Iran, a country as big as Western Europe. Troops would need to collect the material from several places, secure an airstrip near each, truck or helicopter the equipment and material to and from the strip, and defend against attacks on the preparations and shipments.

Another option could be to blend the material with less-concentrated uranium so it could not be used in a nuclear bomb. That would also be difficult, requiring the delivery of equipment and tons of uranium for blending into an active war zone. The National Nuclear Security Administration has developed mobile equipment in the past for similar efforts, though it has never been used in a war zone. And flying everything back out of Iran would be another logistical nightmare.

Such an operation would deal with the highly enriched uranium Iran has already produced – if the United States and Israel are confident they know where it all is.

But Iran also has stockpiles of less-enriched uranium, including over 6 tons enriched to 5% U-235, some of which may also have survived the strikes. That may not sound like much, but to reach that level, two-thirds of the work of enriching all the way to 90% has already been done. And the centrifuges and centrifuge parts that Iran probably still has could always be used to make more.

A person in a white coat puts his hands on some metal piping. — An International Atomic Energy Agency inspector works at one of Iran’s nuclear research centers in Natanz in January 2014.
Kazem Ghane/IRNA/AFP via Getty Images

Another ending

Trump may choose to try to stop the war without dealing with Iran’s uranium stockpiles or any of these other capabilities. That would leave a weakened but embittered regime possibly more determined than ever to make a nuclear bomb – and still with the material and much of the knowledge and equipment needed to do so.

To mitigate the dangers of that, the United States and Israel might effectively say to Iran, “Don’t you dare use those tunnels or take anything out of them or we’ll hit you again.” But that is hardly a long-term solution.

Fundamentally, Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be bombed away. Ultimately, I believe, U.S. security would be best served through agreements to limit Iran’s nuclear efforts, coupled with effective international inspection, keeping watch year after year. Provisions to do that were central to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal between China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union and Iran. Trump pulled the U.S. out of the agreement in 2018, enabling Iran to make the highly enriched uranium that now poses a danger.

In my view, only diplomacy can again provide strict limits and effective monitoring in the future. But this war may well have ruined the chances for such diplomatic options for many years to come.

Matthew Bunn is a member of the Board of Directors of the Arms Control Association; serves on the National Academies’ Committee on International Security and Arms Control; has consulted for the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration and several U.S. national laboratories; and receives funding for his research from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Frankel Foundation, and others.

– ref. Iran’s nuclear materials and equipment remain a danger in an active war zone – https://theconversation.com/irans-nuclear-materials-and-equipment-remain-a-danger-in-an-active-war-zone-278008

March 17, 2026

Why developing nations could be the first to suffer as the Middle East conflict raises food prices

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lotanna Emediegwu, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Manchester Metropolitan University

Geopolitical tensions rarely stay confined to the battlefield. They ripple through global markets – particularly energy and food. The war between the US, Israel and Iran is a reminder of how quickly conflict can affect food security far beyond the region.

One of the most consequential developments of this conflict has been the disruption of shipping through the strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas normally passes.

Iran has also targeted energy infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf states. Oil and gas facilities in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar have reportedly halted operations after drone attacks. Because the Middle East accounts for roughly 30% of global oil production and about 17% of natural gas production, such disruptions quickly rattled energy markets.

Higher energy prices may bring windfalls for oil-exporting countries. But they also push up the cost of producing and transporting food. That is why this conflict is likely to have consequences for food security, particularly in developing economies.

Food production depends heavily on energy. Fuel powers agricultural machinery, irrigation systems and transport networks that move food from farms to markets. Energy is also crucial for processing, refrigeration and long-distance shipping.

Fertiliser production is another key link. Nitrogen-based fertilisers rely heavily on natural gas and other energy inputs. When farmers’ production costs rise, it eventually filters through into food prices.

Food prices had already begun rising in February 2026 for the first time in five months. This was driven mainly by higher cereal prices – particularly wheat – following frost risks in parts of Europe and the US. There are also continuing logistical disruptions in the Black Sea region amid the Russia-Ukraine war.

The current surge in energy prices is likely to intensify these pressures. For example, the futures price of wheat (whereby traders buy and sell wheat at a predetermined price for future delivery) in Chicago recently approached a two-year high. This came amid fears of higher transport and production costs.

Similar pressures could emerge across other staple crops if the Middle East conflict continues to disrupt energy supply.

In a 2024 study, Marco Rogna and I examined how changes in international agricultural commodity prices are transmitted to domestic markets in developing countries. The research looked at staples including maize, rice, sorghum and wheat, across countries in sub-Saharan Africa, east Asia and the Pacific, and south Asia.

Our findings show that increases in international food prices are quickly transmitted to domestic markets in many developing economies. This is largely because many of these countries depend heavily on food imports or food aid for staples they do not produce in sufficient quantities.

When global prices rise, local food prices typically begin to increase within a month. In most cases, the strongest effects occur quickly and then gradually fade within about two months. But even short-lived spikes can have serious consequences for households that spend a large share of their income on food.

Food insecurity

The degree of impact also varies by commodity. Our results suggest that wheat prices are particularly sensitive to global shocks. In some developing economies, a 1% increase in global wheat prices can lead to a local price increase of up to 1.5%.

One notable exception is sorghum. Around 80% of the land devoted to growing this grain around the world is in developing countries, particularly in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. It is largely consumed locally as a staple that can be used for flour, for example. Because production and consumption are mostly domestic rather than tied to international trade, sorghum markets are less exposed to global volatility.

Regional differences also matter. Countries in east Asia and the Pacific are more exposed to global maize price increases because they rely more heavily on these imports. By contrast, many countries in sub-Saharan Africa are more vulnerable to fluctuations in rice prices because of their growing reliance on imports due to climate change, internal conflict and rapidly growing populations.

Rice beans and garri displayed for sale at Bodija Market in Oyo, Nigeria — Countries in sub-Saharan Africa are becoming more reliant on rice imports.
Tolu Owoeye/Shutterstock

Political institutions can also shape how global price shocks affect local markets. Our research found that democratic developing countries often respond more quickly to rising food prices than non-democratic ones. For example, when international rice prices rise, non-democratic countries such as Afghanistan may experience roughly twice the increase in domestic rice prices as democratic nations like Nigeria.

These discrepancies could be explained by the fact that democratic governments face stronger pressure to intervene through subsidies, trade adjustments or food support programmes.

As these tensions disrupt global energy markets, governments in developing countries will need to prepare for possible food price shocks. Policies that strengthen domestic food production, particularly for locally adaptable crops such as sorghum, can reduce reliance on volatile global markets.

Governments can also draw lessons from developed economies by investing in strategic grain reserves, improving food storage and transport infrastructure, and expanding targeted welfare programmes to support vulnerable households during price spikes.

In an interconnected global economy, major conflicts rarely stay local. Households in poorer countries thousands of miles away may feel the impact not on the battlefield but at the dinner table.

Lotanna Emediegwu 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. Why developing nations could be the first to suffer as the Middle East conflict raises food prices – https://theconversation.com/why-developing-nations-could-be-the-first-to-suffer-as-the-middle-east-conflict-raises-food-prices-278164

March 17, 2026

How a new plan for protein could transform the UK’s national security

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chris Macdonald, Lab Director and Fellow, University of Cambridge

The UK’s use of land is indefensibly inefficient. Roughly 5% is used for buildings and roads, 10% for forest and woodland, plus 20% for arable crops. But the largest share, around 50% of our country, is dedicated to livestock.

Producing protein by raising, feeding and slaughtering animals can consume ten times more land than extracting the protein directly from crops. In other words, the UK is dedicating the largest share of its land to the least efficient form of protein production.

Better still, emerging technologies such as cell cultivation and precision fermentation could produce the same quality and quantity of protein on hundreds of times less land.

Despite devoting roughly half the country to raising and feeding livestock, the UK produces only around 60% of the food it consumes. This leaves it dependent on imports and vulnerable to climate shocks and disruptions of global supply chains. The UK also still has to rely heavily on millions of tonnes of imported animal feed, often sourced from regions where forests have been cleared or ecosystems degraded.

Animal agriculture is a major environmental and ethical burden. It contributes disproportionately to greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and nature loss.

In a lose–lose trade-off, more land-efficient livestock systems can clash profoundly with public sentiment: intensive farming means many dairy cows never set foot outside and many hens spend their entire lives indoors, often confined to spaces no bigger than a single sheet of A4 paper.

Emerging technologies such as cell cultivation and precision fermentation offer a transformative alternative. Protein grown from cells or microbes programmed to produce certain proteins can be made hundreds of times more efficiently, while delivering the same or better nutritional quality.

Research shows that increased protein intakes have significant health benefits, especially for older people. For example, high-protein diets help prevent sarcopenia, the age-related loss of muscle mass and strength that reduces mobility and independence.

My latest study shows that high-protein content is now a key driver of meal choice among UK consumers. So, securing and expanding sustainable protein supply aligns with both consumer preferences and the growing evidence on optimal health outcomes.

Some nations are already motoring ahead with this protein transition. In the US, for example, companies such as Upside Foods, Good Meat and Wild Type are using cell cultivation technology to grow animal meat cells such as chicken and beef.

Other companies in the US such as Perfect Day, The Every Company and Triton Algae Innovations are applying precision fermentation technology — a process in which microorganisms are programmed with instructions to produce specific animal proteins — to manufacture animal-identical proteins such as whey, egg white and other dairy proteins.

Rather than resembling factory farms or slaughterhouses, these facilities look like breweries, with rows of stainless-steel tanks where microbes or animal cells convert simple nutrients into proteins (just like yeast converts sugars into alcohol during brewing).

woman in white lab coat and holding clipboard looks at big metal vat inside factory — Precision fermentation uses much less space to produce protein than farming livestock.
DG FotoStock/Shutterstock

While the US has already approved and begun limited sales of cultivated meat, the UK remains in the regulatory development phase, with no products yet authorised for human consumption.

Indoor and controlled-environment farming could similarly revolutionise fruit and vegetable production. For example, automated vertical farms provide predictable, year-round yields, insulated from droughts, floods, seasonal volatility, trade wars and global supply chain disruptions because they aren’t subject to external variables.

Powering protein

An energy transition underpins such a food transition. The UK would need to expand renewable energy and develop its nuclear capacity to meet the needs of this energy-intensive form of food production. Renewables provide scale; nuclear provides stability. Together, they could power innovative protein facilities, indoor farms and electrified heating and transport, enabling a fully domestic, self-sufficient food-energy system.

The benefits of this land-use shift could be transformative. The masses of land freed up could be used for more trees and national parks; more biodiversity and leisure spaces; cleaner air and water. More predictability, less suffering.

The great protein transition won’t be easy. It will involve challenging negotiations and significant investment. It will take time and forward-thinking leadership. But the prize is well worth it: a national-scale protein transition would strengthen independence and national security.

The UK stands at a crossroads. By embracing the protein transition, it could one day feed and power itself, building resilience against increasing climate and geopolitical uncertainty.

Chris Macdonald 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. How a new plan for protein could transform the UK’s national security – https://theconversation.com/how-a-new-plan-for-protein-could-transform-the-uks-national-security-277661

March 17, 2026

How did the courts backlog get so bad?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Alge, Senior Lecturer in Criminology & Criminal Justice, Brunel University of London

Across England and Wales, delays in the Crown Courts have become an endemic feature of the justice system. Criminal trials are scheduled years after alleged offences, with some in London now being listed as far ahead as 2029.

The most recent official statistics show that as of autumn 2025, the backlog in the Crown Court, which deals with the most serious criminal cases, had reached nearly 80,000 outstanding cases. That’s more than double the pre-pandemic figure of around 38,000 in 2019 (which itself represented a substantial backlog).

The scale of the backlog is what has prompted the government’s contentious proposals to reduce the use of jury trials. The courts and tribunals bill recently passed its second reading in the Commons, with dozens of Labour MPs abstaining.

Delays are significantly longer in the Crown Court than in the magistrates’ courts, which deal with lower-level offending. Magistrates deal with high-volume, relatively straightforward offences such as motoring offences, minor assaults or low value thefts, with higher rates of guilty pleas and no juries.

Court delays have consequences for all parties involved. Research suggests that prolonged criminal proceedings can worsen victims’ trauma and increase the likelihood that they withdraw from the prosecution process.

Delays also place a significant strain on the lives and mental health of defendants. This is particularly true for those held on remand awaiting trial. The number of people on remand increased by 84% between 2019 and 2024, partly because of court backlogs, placing additional pressure on the prison estate.

How did we get here?

Although the pandemic undoubtedly worsened the situation, the roots of the backlog run deeper. The current crisis reflects several pressures that have built up over more than a decade.

One widely cited factor is reduced court capacity. Following the 2008 financial crisis, the Ministry of Justice experienced some of the largest spending reductions in Whitehall. Over the 2010s, its budget fell by around 12% in real terms. Dozens of courts were closed across England and Wales as part of efforts to reduce costs.

Infrastructure problems have also taken courtrooms out of use. A 2022 Law Society survey reported that 64% of solicitors had experienced delays caused by the poor condition of court buildings. There is a £1.3 billion maintenance backlog in the courts estate.

At the same time, the number and type of cases being sent to the Crown Court has changed. For “either-way” offences – crimes that can be tried either in the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court depending on severity – a growing proportion are now sent to the Crown Court for trial.

These include violence against the person, handling stolen goods, supply of Class B or C drugs and some less serious sexual offences. The share of these cases going to the Crown Court rose from 19% in 2016 to 24% in 2024.

Crown Court trials typically require juries and take longer to complete. As more cases move into this part of the system, pressure on court time increases.

The pandemic temporarily suspended most jury trials, and by 2022 the backlog had already nearly doubled compared with pre-pandemic levels. So limiting the use of juries may have some impact, but would not solve the wider crisis, and the proposals have faced strong criticism from the legal community.

The composition of cases has also shifted. Serious sexual and violent offences now make up a larger share of the Crown Court caseload than before the pandemic. The backlog of sexual offence cases increased by 40% between 2023 and 2025. These cases are often contested and require longer trials, further slowing the system.

A reduced legal system

Another structural pressure has been the reduction in lawyers and judges, linked to wider funding cuts across the legal system since 2008. For much of the past decade, legal aid rates for criminal work were largely frozen. Many lawyers argued that the work became financially unsustainable, particularly for junior barristers. Some left criminal practice entirely. In 2022, criminal barristers took the unprecedented step of going on strike over legal aid funding.

England and Wales also have comparatively few professional judges – around three per 100,000 people – compared with a European average of about 22 per 100,000. This partly reflects the extensive use of magistrates (lay judges) for less serious offending, but fewer judges and lawyers inevitably limits how many cases can be heard.

Most jurisdictions experienced pandemic-related backlogs, but England and Wales appear unusual in how strongly pre-existing structural pressures contributed to the crisis. Across the European court system, the median criminal case clearance rate post-COVID is about 95-100%, depending on court type and level. This means that cases are resolved at a similar pace to new cases entering the system. In Germany, the clearance rate is over 100%, meaning that backlogs are being reduced year on year. The clearance rate for England and Wales is 91%, meaning that the backlog continues to grow.

In the US, COVID also created significant case backlogs. However, at the federal level, case backlogs had returned to pre-pandemic levels by March 2022 (though longer delays remain at local and state levels). Even the highest average disposition times for felony cases in the US sit at around 350 days from offence to outcome, compared with 695 days on average from offence to completion of the case in the Crown Court.

The US, along with Canada, New Zealand, Australia and several European jurisdictions, continued to use more remote or hybrid hearings post-pandemic, which helped reduce backlogs. England and Wales reverted more heavily to in-person hearings. Retired senior judge Brian Leveson’s review into the courts’ backlog recommends more widespread use of remote hearings as part of the solution.

Recent governments have introduced measures aimed at reducing delays, including increasing the number of court sitting days and recruiting more judges. Sitting days in 2024-25 were the highest for a decade. Even so, the government has said it could take a decade to reduce the backlog to pre-COVID levels. Even with increased investment and efficiency reforms, or indeed reducing the use of jury trials, delays are likely to remain a long-term challenge for the justice system.

Daniel Alge 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. How did the courts backlog get so bad? – https://theconversation.com/how-did-the-courts-backlog-get-so-bad-278111

March 17, 2026

The graduate jobs market is tough right now. An entrepreneurship expert explains how to go it alone

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Spinder Dhaliwal, Reader in Entrepreneurship, Westminster Business School, University of Westminster

For entrepreneurs, something that starts out as a simple idea can transform into a thriving business that brings financial rewards, confidence and personal growth. These days, graduates may look at forecasts for a tightening jobs market and decide their future is as an entrepreneur rather than an employee.

The business world is brimming with opportunity. I have researched entrepreneurship for years, and have found that rapid technological evolution, shifting consumer preferences and a growing focus on sustainability are creating an exciting landscape for bold graduates.

However, success is never guaranteed – like anyone else they’ll need to understand their market, and know their competitors, target audience and growth potential. This is where graduates should put the research skills they honed as a student to good use. This can help them to avoid costly mistakes – things like overestimating demand for their business idea or underestimating the level of competition, for example.

My book, The Millennial Millionaire, demonstrates that successful young entrepreneurs tend to share certain traits: resilience, calculated risk-taking and a willingness to learn from failure. These characteristics remain essential in 2026, particularly as markets become more volatile with persistent inflation, shifting interest rate expectations and growing geopolitical tensions.

Graduate entrepreneurship has evolved over the years, and the traditional linear career where someone stayed with one employer, moving up through the ranks through their working life, is a thing of the past. My book highlights how younger entrepreneurs increasingly pursue business ownership not only for financial independence but also for autonomy, creativity and social impact.

However, it can still be tricky for graduates to make a mark. And entrepreneurship is not a level playing field, either. Rising costs for utilities and essential overheads, competitive markets and unequal access to capital disproportionately affect certain groups. Women generally have less access to capital compared to men, and this is more pronounced for some ethnic minority women. Young people may not have enough personal savings.

Entrepreneurship cannot be separated from questions of diversity and inclusion. Graduate entrepreneurs can face both opportunity and inequality when starting a venture. In this context, migrant communities often have a wealth of valuable “rags to riches” stories that they can share.

No one’s 20s and 30s look the same. You might be saving for a mortgage or just struggling to pay rent. You could be swiping dating apps, or trying to understand childcare. No matter your current challenges, our Quarter Life series has articles to share in the group chat, or just to remind you that you’re not alone.

Read more from Quarter Life:

According to some of my other research, many Asian entrepreneurs in the UK started with virtually no money but used determination and family resources to build multimillion-pound businesses.

For example, the billionaire owner of a string of airport hotels Surinder Arora came from the Punjab as a child. He worked for British Airways and dreamed of being a pilot – but instead invested in a B&B to serve airline crews.

These lessons remain highly relevant: entrepreneurship does not occur in isolation – it is shaped by relationships, identity and experience.

A unique time to go it alone

AI is clearly a game-changer, making this a unique time to launch a business that can be built with AI in mind rather than struggling to keep up. Today’s market is more connected, tech-driven and socially conscious than ever, and tech-savvy graduates are well-positioned to seize these opportunities. Sustainability is no longer optional – consumers expect brands to align with their values and demonstrate social responsibility.

Budding entrepreneurs should use technology to their advantage. This could be for crowdfunding, market research or accessing support networks. My research suggests that entrepreneurs who want to give back to the community and who care about how their business affects the environment are more likely to build long-term trust with their customers.

For graduates, this means aligning business goals with broader societal needs such as poverty reduction or environmental challenges. The resulting venture could take the form of a social enterprise, ethical startup or inclusive business. But these enterprises will still need to generate money and be profitable – you can only give if you have.

Networking is a secret weapon. A strong network is essential, and graduates already have a foundation – they just need to build on it. They should attend industry events, stay informed about economic trends and learn from professionals. A supportive community can help to overcome challenges and accelerate growth.

Securing funding is often the biggest hurdle for new entrepreneurs. What’s key is the ability to start lean – “bootstrapping” (that is, having to start with the bare minimum of capital) is a challenge entrepreneurs are often forced to overcome. Many businesses begin with personal savings or family support. But graduates can also explore competitions and grants. Then eventually, a compelling pitch may attract investors.

Starting a business offers graduates unparalleled opportunities, from harnessing technology to tackling global challenges such as climate change. Success lies in identifying a passion, using resources well and building a strong support network. The future belongs to those who innovate, adapt and take calculated risks. With determination and the right mindset, graduates can turn a vision into a thriving venture.

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

– ref. The graduate jobs market is tough right now. An entrepreneurship expert explains how to go it alone – https://theconversation.com/the-graduate-jobs-market-is-tough-right-now-an-entrepreneurship-expert-explains-how-to-go-it-alone-276580

March 17, 2026

Pets & their People explores the long, strange history of human-animal companionship

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Philip Howell, Professor of Geography, University of Cambridge

Pets play an important role in many people’s lives. In the UK, six out of ten households have at least one pet, dogs being our most common companions (assuming we don’t count fish individually). But it isn’t easy to be precise.

The 2025 figure of 13.5 million pet dogs has recently been bumped up to correct for a significant undercounting in previous UK estimates. This compares with around 11 million pet cats, although there are similar problems in trying to count these ungovernable beasts and their stray cousins.

Another point of debate is why we have these relationships at all. What motivates pet owners – and when did we start the process of turning wild animals into the “fur babies” of the family?

Equally importantly, what’s in it for the animals? Were their wild ancestors lured in by the promise of a warm fire, perhaps on some kind of contract to kill mice or protect sheep? Or did they purposefully inveigle themselves into our homes and affections to offer companionship, comfort, even therapy?

All these questions are raised by a wonderful new exhibition, Pets & their People, in Oxford’s Bodleian Library.

Pets and people

The exhibition is curated by Charles Foster, who is a noted naturalist but otherwise pleasingly difficult to pigeonhole. As the author of both Being a Beast (2016) and Being a Human (2022), Foster’s intention has long been to show how those statuses are inseparable.

In his work, Foster suggests that far back in our human history, shamans and other spiritual figures attempted to enter the lifeworlds of other animals. But then, as hunter-gatherers gave way to Neolithic farmers, people came to imagine themselves as members of a distinct species – lonely lords of creation.

Medieval Ashmole Bestiary illumination of Adam naming the creatures of earth. — Medieval Ashmole Bestiary illumination of Adam naming the creatures of Earth.
Bodleian Libraries University of Oxford

There is a glorious image on display from the Ashmole Bestiary (an illuminated 13th-century manuscript containing descriptions of real and mythical animals) of Adam giving names to the animals. This image exemplifies, for Foster, human power and privilege, with these newly christened critters placed in their separate enclosures – cages that would contain them hereafter.

Pets, this exhibition suggests, similarly aided human beings in the achievement of selfhood, even if the distinctiveness of humans from beasts is always tested and troubled, now just as much as in the distant past.

The power of human beings to shape pets for their variously selfish reasons is acknowledged. The show explores the results of breeding in brachycephalic snouts and other defects to best-in-breed winners.

On the theme of mixing and muddling, we are also reminded of companion animals being thoroughly anthropomorphised, and of humans being transformed as if in sympathy into beasts.

One example is poet Philip Larkin’s doodle of himself as a rabbit ensconced in a chintzy armchair, extremely Larkin-esquely watching snooker on cable TV with a measure of spirits to hand. The pets of authors Raymond Chandler and Patricia Highsmith unexpectedly get a look in too, alongside the more familiar examples of Lord Byron’s Boatswain (a Newfoundland dog) and poet Christopher Smart’s Jeoffry (a cat).

Nineteenth-century photographic calling cards, or cartes de visite, remind visitors that when asked to display ourselves (now on social media, dating sites, even on Zoom calls), many of us hold up our pets to the camera – which is to say, pets are us.

The age of selfies only confirms this long history of entanglement. The idea is that (a little like Larkin) we lean on our pets to tell stories about ourselves.

Virtual pets like Tamagotchis or the current fad for robot pets seem harder to explain, and pet rocks even more so (there is a specimen on show, a triumph of 1970s marketing chutzpah). But the emphasis is on our millennia-long lockstep with nonhuman animals.

Pets, ancient and modern

Visitors are encouraged to think that love for pets and grief at their loss are the same, whether we are considering ancient Egypt or early modern England.

The argument that the concept of “pets” is a more recent phenomenon (I’ve contributed to this idea with my research) is a fainter refrain. But there are still plenty of surprises in this exhibition to back up its stress on continuities.

Two extraordinary papyri records for the purchase of dog bowls make the point. There are other instances of commercial opportunism on display – from the production of mummified cats in ancient Egypt to the advent of the pet industry in our day. The lesson is that animal companions break the bank as well as break our hearts.

I understand that attempts to secure examples of celebrity dog bling for this exhibition were to no avail, but once more the conclusion is quite secure: when it comes to pets, contemporary excess has a long history.

However, what pets are and what they mean is still a puzzle for researchers – we don’t even have an accepted definition of pet. While the term “companion animal” doesn’t have much poetry about it, scholars tend to use this more neutral language to account for the variety of relationships people have had with animals, over the course of thousands of years and in innumerably different cultures.

Researchers don’t know quite why some of us love pets and some of us don’t. Or why love for pets is sanctioned at times and denounced at others. Still, this exhibition reminds us that head-wrangling questions are more satisfying than rote answers. Perhaps being human is indeed about looking at our pets and asking what separates us from them.

Pets & their People is at the Bodleian Library until September 27

Philip Howell 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. Pets & their People explores the long, strange history of human-animal companionship – https://theconversation.com/pets-and-their-people-explores-the-long-strange-history-of-human-animal-companionship-278153

March 17, 2026

Formula 1: new sustainability rules are changing the way races are won

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paolo Aversa, Professor of Strategy, King’s College London

The first races under Formula 1’s new regulations delivered exactly what the sport’s rule-makers had hoped for: more overtaking. At the recent Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne, passes on track nearly tripled compared with the previous year. At the Chinese Grand Prix over the weekend the increase was less extreme, but still noticeable.

This revealed something unexpected about Formula 1’s new generation of cars. Many of the passes did not come from the classic ingredients of racing – a driver braking later into a corner, carrying more speed through the apex, or finding a daring line. Instead, they often happened when one car temporarily ran out of electrical power.

Under one of the most significant rule changes in the sport’s history, roughly half of a Formula 1 car’s output now comes from its electric motor. Drivers must carefully manage when their batteries deploy or regenerate energy. When the battery runs low, the car temporarily becomes vulnerable. Once the battery is recharged by recovering energy from braking, the driver can attack again. These cycles can create sudden swings in performance within a race.

This is raising questions about whether Formula 1’s push for sustainability is changing how races are won.

A greener engine era

Under the new regulations, the cars still look like Formula 1 machines. But the way they generate and deploy power is very different. The familiar turbocharged combustion engine remains, but it now shares power almost equally with the electric system.

The combustion engine also now runs on 100% sustainable fuel, designed to be carbon-neutral over its lifecycle. The cars themselves are smaller and lighter, with new active aerodynamic systems aimed at reducing air resistance on straights.

Major rule changes often trigger waves of experimentation as teams search for new advantages, and managing energy has suddenly become central to racing strategy. In a study published in Organization Science, my colleagues and I showed that Formula 1 teams face a classic strategic trade-off: incremental improvements are safe but rarely transformative, while radical innovations can produce breakthrough performance – or spectacular failure.

A new kind of racing

The Australian Grand Prix offered an early glimpse of how racing is being affected. Early in the race, Mercedes driver George Russell and Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc repeatedly overtook each other within a few laps. But the pattern was unusual: neither driver was consistently faster. Instead, their cars were alternating between phases of energy depletion and recharge. The result looked less like traditional racing and more like a strategic ebb and flow of electrical power.

In the new hybrid era, drivers may need to adjust braking points or racing lines to regenerate electricity efficiently. They may even need to lift their foot from the throttle when in past seasons the same situation would have called for flat-out acceleration.

Some drivers have already expressed concerns that the new cars could feel less instinctive if energy constraints become too restrictive. If success increasingly depends on managing software systems and electrical energy flows, some drivers may feel that the essence of their craft is shifting. After the Chinese Grand Prix, veteran racer Fernando Alonso called this the “battery world championships”, and recent champion Max Verstappen likened it to Mario Kart.

The F1 sustainability paradox

Formula 1 has long argued that it operates like a moonshot laboratory, where extreme competition accelerates development. Technologies refined in racing have later appeared elsewhere, from advanced braking and handling systems in road cars to sensor technologies now used in hospitals. Even the choreography of Formula 1 pit stops has inspired procedures used by emergency medical teams.

The new generation of engines aims to extend that tradition by demonstrating sustainable innovation through advanced hybrid systems and sustainable fuels. But there is a paradox here. Early estimates suggest Formula 1’s new synthetic, net-zero fuel could cost hundreds of dollars per litre, more than ten times the cost of conventional racing fuel – and a hundred or more times the cost of regular petrol.

While this shows what is technically possible, unless production costs fall dramatically these fuels may remain confined to racing or high-performance supercars. In other words, the sport may develop impressive sustainable technologies – but ones that remain too expensive for everyday mobility.

Racing for the future

None of this means the regulations have failed. Formula 1 has a long history of dramatic rule changes producing awkward early seasons before engineers unlock their potential. Previous technological revolutions such as ground-effect aerodynamics in the late 1970s or the hybrid power units introduced in 2009 and then in 2014 required years of refinement before teams fully mastered them. Something similar may happen this year.

The first two races of the new season offered a first hint of tension facing the sport, but whether it ultimately produces better racing remains uncertain. At times, the difference between new and old F1 resembles the contrast between choreographed WWE matches and Olympic wrestling: more visually dramatic, yet less about raw athletic contest.

What is clear is that the 2026 regulations have already begun to reshape Formula 1 in ways few expected.

Paolo Aversa 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. Formula 1: new sustainability rules are changing the way races are won – https://theconversation.com/formula-1-new-sustainability-rules-are-changing-the-way-races-are-won-278342

March 17, 2026

Why universities still struggle to make degrees accessible for disabled students

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Holly Louise Parrott, PhD Candidate, access and participation in higher education, The Open University

The higher education sector is more aware of disability than it was a few years ago. Universities are more willing to provide support, and attitudes have improved. What students describe day to day, however, tells a different story.

A recent report on accessibility for disabled students in UK universities, produced by Disabled Students UK in partnership with charity The Snowdon Trust, shows that access continues to break down. This is not because support is never agreed, but because it is not consistently delivered.

Disabled students’ ability to attend, participate in, and complete their studies depends less on what exists on paper and more on how well institutional systems work in practice. This pattern is also the focus of my ongoing PhD research, which examines how accessibility support systems operate in UK higher education and how reliably agreed adjustments are delivered in practice.

Most disabled students who disclose their disability to their university receive some form of support. However, fewer than half of the over 1,000 disabled students surveyed by Disabled Students UK report that all of their agreed adjustments are consistently delivered. This can mean lecture recordings that are promised but unavailable, flexibility that varies between modules, or adjustments that depend on individual staff awareness rather than clear processes.

These gaps are rarely the result of hostility or unwillingness. Instead, they reflect systems where responsibility for delivery is unclear and monitoring is weak. When adjustments fail, it is often the student who must notice the problem, pursue it, and escalate it. This places the burden of access on the very people those systems are meant to support.

These findings align with what research across the higher education sector has been showing for some time. There is a persistent gap between universities’ commitments to accessibility and what students experience day to day. Responsibility for delivering adjustments is often spread across departments and services.

The report also shows that fewer disabled students now have formal support plans, alongside reduced contact with disability advisers. This suggests a shift towards more informal or automated approaches, often driven by capacity pressures.

In practice, this can look like students being asked to select standard adjustments through an online system, with little or no followup. Support may be approved without a meeting with a disability adviser, and responsibility for putting adjustments in place is left to individual departments or staff. For students with complex or fluctuating conditions, this often means support that appears adequate on paper but breaks down when teaching formats change or difficulties arise.

Group of students, including one with a visual impairment — The burden of pointing out poor access often falls on students.
PintoArt/Shutterstock

For some students with straightforward needs, this can reduce friction. For others it leads to less reliable access and fewer opportunities to influence how support is provided. Formal support plans do more than list adjustments. They give students a structured opportunity to explain their needs, ensure those needs are clearly recorded, and make the support process more transparent. They also provide continuity, clarify responsibility, and provide a shared reference point when things go wrong. As these structures weaken, access becomes increasingly dependent on individual persistence and the ability to navigate complex systems.

During the pandemic, measures such as lecture recording and remote participation improved access for many disabled students. In recent years, this flexibility has begun to decline. This retreat has not been neutral. For students who cannot always attend in person, reduced flexibility can mean missing teaching altogether. These decisions are often framed as restoring normality or the campus experience. Their effect, however, is to remove forms of access that were already shown to work. The result is a return to systems that assume all students can participate in the same way.

One of the report’s clearest findings is that administrative complexity itself acts as a barrier to access. Disabled students describe delays between departments and services, repeated explanations of their needs, and frequent requests for evidence. When systems are fragmented, access depends on a student’s ability to navigate bureaucracy rather than on the adjustments they are entitled to.

Many students report going without support because the effort required to secure it is too high, particularly when they are unwell. This also helps explain why many access failures go unrecorded. Escalation is often seen as risky, time-consuming, or ineffective.

These patterns matter beyond individual experience. When access is unreliable, the consequences include disrupted study, poorer outcomes and higher withdrawal rates. There are also wider implications for regulation and public trust.

As institutions make decisions about resourcing, delivery models and teaching formats, the reliability of access becomes a test of how those pressures are managed. Treating accessibility as local or optional rather than as essential infrastructure increases the likelihood of repeated failure. In this context, accessibility is not a specialist concern. It is a matter of system reliability and public accountability.

The report does not suggest that universities lack awareness or goodwill. Instead, it shows that culture has moved faster than systems. Disabled students are not asking for special treatment but for support that is delivered consistently and without personal cost. The challenge now is to move from intent to reliability. Until accessibility is embedded as a baseline expectation within institutional systems, disabled students’ access to higher education will continue to depend on where they study and on how well those systems work.

Holly Louise Parrott 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. Why universities still struggle to make degrees accessible for disabled students – https://theconversation.com/why-universities-still-struggle-to-make-degrees-accessible-for-disabled-students-275130

March 17, 2026

Accords sanitaires Afrique–États-Unis : les alertes d’un virologue

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Oyewale Tomori, Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science

Les États-Unis signent des accords bilatéraux avec des pays africains. À la fin du mois de février 2026, des accords d’une valeur de 19,8 milliards de dollars américains ont été signés dans le cadre du nouveau financement de la santé. Sur ce montant, les États-Unis se sont engagés à verser 12,2 milliards de dollars et les pays africains 7,5 milliards de dollars.

Dix-huit pays africains ont signé ces accords. Il s’agit du Botswana, du Burkina Faso, du Burundi, du Cameroun, de la Côte d’Ivoire, de la République démocratique du Congo, de l’Eswatini, de l’Éthiopie, du Kenya, du Lesotho, du Liberia, de Madagascar, du Malawi, du Mozambique, du Nigeria, du Rwanda, de la Sierra Leone et de l’Ouganda.

The Conversation Africa a demandé au professeur de virologie Oyewale Tomori, ancien virologue régional de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé, comment les pays africains auraient dû réagir à cette initiative américaine.

Les États-Unis ont conclu des accords bilatéraux avec plusieurs pays africains sur le financement de la santé. Comme pour tout financement, des conditions ont été imposées. Quelles conditions considérez-vous comme des « signaux d’alerte » ?

La condition la plus controversée est sans doute l’obligation pour les pays de partager rapidement avec les États-Unis des données sanitaires sensibles et de précieux échantillons d’agents pathogènes (parfois pendant une période pouvant aller jusqu’à 25 ans). Les échantillons d’agents pathogènes sont des atouts inestimables pour la santé publique, la gestion clinique et la recherche. Ils sont utiles pour identifier les maladies et mettre au point des vaccins et des traitements.

Cela sans garantie correspondante d’accès aux innovations médicales qui en résultent, telles que les vaccins et autres thérapies. Le retour sur investissement potentiel des innovations sur l’un de ces agents pathogènes pourrait largement dépasser le montant total des contributions américaines aux accords. Par exemple, à l’échelle mondiale, pour chaque dollar investi dans le développement et la distribution du vaccin contre la COVID-19, le retour sur investissement estimé varie entre 42 et 775 dollars.

De plus, la durée des accords initiaux est de cinq ans. Pourquoi alors les pays africains devraient-ils s’engager dès le départ à partager leurs données et leurs agents pathogènes pendant 20 ans supplémentaires ? Et ce, indépendamment du renouvellement des accords après les cinq premières années.

Les pays africains ne doivent pas céder leurs données sanitaires ni divulguer sans compter leurs précieux agents pathogènes en échange d’un financement des donateurs. Il faudrait plutôt mobiliser des fonds locaux afin de créer et de maintenir un environnement propice permettant aux professionnels de santé africains de gérer les données localement, au lieu de partager les données brutes à l’échelle mondiale. En outre, les fonds de contrepartie provenant de sources locales devraient être utilisés pour créer un environnement favorable au soutien et au renforcement des capacités des scientifiques et chercheurs locaux à développer des innovations à partir d’agents pathogènes indigènes, dans l’intérêt de tous.

Un autre point préoccupant dans ces accords concerne certaines questions économiques, sociales et politiques qui pourraient entraver leur mise en œuvre. Par exemple, en Zambie, l’accord sur la santé a été lié à un accord distinct avec les États-Unis sur la « collaboration dans le secteur minier ». Cet accord n’a pas encore été finalisé.

Un directeur de l’organisation de défense des droits des personnes atteintes du VIH, Health Gap, a déjà accusé les États-Unis de « subordonner les services de santé vitaux au pillage des richesses minérales du pays ». Il a qualifié cela d’« exploitation éhontée et immorale ».

Un troisième signal d’alarme se trouve dans l’accord conclu avec le Nigeria. Les États-Unis ont déclaré qu’ils mettraient « fortement l’accent sur la promotion des prestataires de soins de santé chrétiens ». L’un des principaux éléments de l’accord est l’inclusion d’une aide américaine spécifique d’environ 200 millions de dollars destinée à plus de 900 établissements de santé chrétiens à travers le Nigeria.

Compte tenu de la diversité religieuse du Nigeria, cette disposition a suscité un débat au sein des groupes de la société civile sur la question de l’inclusivité.

En réponse aux critiques, le gouvernement nigérian a affirmé que le protocole d’accord n’était lié à aucune religion. Le gouvernement a déclaré que 10 % de la contribution américaine était destinée aux prestataires confessionnels en général, y compris les institutions chrétiennes et musulmanes.

En vertu du protocole d’accord, les États-Unis s’engageront à verser près de 2,1 milliards de dollars américains pour développer les services préventifs et curatifs essentiels dans les domaines du VIH, de la tuberculose, du paludisme, de la santé maternelle et infantile et de la polio. En outre, le Nigeria augmentera ses dépenses de santé nationales de près de 3 milliards de dollars (plus de 4 000 milliards de nairas). Il s’agit du plus important co-investissement jamais réalisé par un pays dans le cadre de la stratégie America First Global Health Strategy.

La contribution du Nigeria s’élève à plus de 838 milliards de nairas par an.
Entre 2020 et 2025, l’allocation budgétaire du Nigeria à la santé oscillait entre 4,2 % et 5,2 % du budget national. En 2025, le budget alloué à la santé au Nigeria s’élevait à 2,48 billions de nairas, soit 5,18 % du budget national.

Le cofinancement annuel prévu par le Nigeria représente près de 40 % du budget alloué à la santé en 2025. Cela signifie que le budget de la santé du Nigeria pour 2026 doit en tenir compte, si le pays ne veut pas enfreindre l’accord. Pour un pays dont le budget alloué à la santé est resté constamment inférieur à 6 % du budget national, il est irréaliste de respecter cette partie de l’accord. En 2025, le Nigeria n’a débloqué qu’environ 36 millions de nairas (environ 25 797 dollars américains) sur les 218 milliards de nairas (environ 156 millions de dollars américains) alloués au ministère de la Santé pour des projets d’investissement.

Enfin, les accords bilatéraux semblent conçus pour saper les systèmes mis en place par l’Organisation mondiale de la santé afin de garantir l’équité dans toute réponse future à une pandémie. La « stratégie mondiale pour la santé America First » met l’accent sur les accords de coopération bilatérale directe. Cela pose des risques importants pour les négociations en cours sur le Système d’accès aux agents pathogènes et de partage des avantages découlant de leur utilisation (PABS) dans le cadre de l’accord sur les pandémies adopté en 2025. .

Les pays africains devraient faire preuve d’une extrême prudence quant aux accords qu’ils signent. En particulier, cet accord avec les États-Unis comporte une clause de résiliation unilatérale qui pourrait laisser les pays africains suspendus à ce qui reste de la souveraineté fragile d’un État dépendant. Cette clause donne aux États-Unis le droit de suspendre ou de mettre fin à tout programme qui ne correspond pas aux intérêts du gouvernement américain et/ou aux intérêts de l’administration actuelle.

Il y a toujours des compromis à faire dans ce genre de décisions. Quels compromis considérez-vous comme inacceptables ?

En aucun cas l’Afrique ne devrait céder des données brutes ou des agents pathogènes, quel que soit le montant offert ou le don proposé. Nous devons utiliser nos ressources pour créer un environnement propice permettant à nos chercheurs africains bien formés de travailler efficacement. De plus, ces ressources devraient servir à renforcer les capacités des chercheurs africains afin qu’ils puissent traiter localement nos données et analyser nos agents pathogènes indigènes. Nous disposons d’une main-d’œuvre hautement qualifiée (des scientifiques spécialisés en données de recherche en santé) qui, si elle bénéficie d’un environnement propice, peut traiter nos données et analyser nos agents pathogènes directement sur le continent.

Le lien signalé entre les accords de financement de la santé et l’exploitation des ressources minérales et naturelles est une preuve suffisante que l’objectif est de donner quelques miettes à l’Afrique, alors que l’Amérique rafle le gros des gains.

Pour être honnête envers les Américains, ils ont déclaré d’emblée qu’il s’agissait de donner la priorité à l’Amérique. Il est regrettable que de nombreux gouvernements africains signent ces accords en ignorant complètement l’opinion de la communauté et en méprisant les contributions des organisations de la société civile.

Si les différents pays avaient bien réfléchi, ils auraient chargé l’Union africaine et les Centres africains de contrôle des maladies de fournir des lignes directrices complètes et cohérentes sur les accords américains. Mais cela n’a pas été le cas, et nous nous retrouvons aujourd’hui avec une multitude d’accords bilatéraux déséquilibrés, conçus pour servir les intérêts des donateurs.

Y a-t-il des aspects positifs ?

Oui, bien sûr. Chaque pays recevra un soutien financier des États-Unis pour « développer les services préventifs et curatifs essentiels pour le VIH, la tuberculose, le paludisme, la santé maternelle et infantile, la polio et la surveillance des maladies ». Ce financement aidera certainement les pays à améliorer leurs services de prévention et de contrôle de certaines maladies.

De plus, chaque accord comporte une exigence de co-investissement. Celle-ci invite les pays participants à augmenter leurs propres dépenses de santé afin de remplacer l’investissement américain sur une période de cinq ans.

Si cette mesure est mise en œuvre avec succès, elle pourrait avoir des résultats positifs, car elle aiderait les pays à fournir un financement adéquat aux services de santé.

Mais il y a des réserves.

Premièrement, cette clause pourrait contraindre les gouvernements à réaffecter des fonds provenant d’autres services essentiels.

Deuxièmement, l’incapacité à fournir un cofinancement local adéquat pourrait entraver la mise en œuvre réussie de l’accord.

Troisièmement, l’espoir que les pays augmentent progressivement leur financement national en faveur de la santé semble irréaliste. En 2001, les pays africains ont adopté la Déclaration d’Abuja. Ils se sont ainsi engagés à allouer au moins 15 % de leur budget national annuel à la santé. Au cours des 25 dernières années, aucun pays n’a atteint cet objectif de manière constante.

Mais si cette clause incite les gouvernements africains à mettre enfin en œuvre l’allocation minimale de 15 % du budget national à la santé, ce serait évidemment un résultat positif des accords.

Oyewale Tomori 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. Accords sanitaires Afrique–États-Unis : les alertes d’un virologue – https://theconversation.com/accords-sanitaires-afrique-etats-unis-les-alertes-dun-virologue-278324