Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Olga Lazareva, Professor of Psychology, Drake University

Imagine taking out a 12-inch ruler and finding that the number 12 is on the left side and the number 1 is on the right side. For most native English speakers, this would be disorienting. We are used to seeing the numbers move from smallest to largest, from left to right. When this layout flips, people struggle because the numbers are now in the “wrong” place.

Psychologists have long known that people in Western cultures tend to associate smaller numbers with the left side of space and larger numbers with the right, a phenomenon called the SNARC effect – short for Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes.

In the lab, researchers like us test this tendency by asking people to press a left or a right button when shown a numerical digit. Native English speakers are generally quicker to press left for small numbers and right for large numbers because these locations match our mental number line.

But here’s the twist: What feels like the “correct” direction depends on where you grew up and where you live. In places with right-to-left languages like Arabic, the pattern often flips: People are faster to press right for small numbers and left for large numbers. Speakers of Farsi, a right-to-left language, who were born in Iran but move to France gradually shift toward a left-to-right mapping the longer they stay.

Even literacy matters. On average, people who never learned to read or count don’t show the effect at all. Researchers aren’t sure why. Maybe these people do not map numbers to space. Or maybe each individual has their own different orientation – left-to-right vs. right-to-left – that wash each other out when investigators average them all together.

Although people in Western cultures are used to seeing numbers increase left to right on keypads, rulers or classroom number lines, the SNARC effect isn’t limited to numbers. In the lab, similar left-to-right patterns appear with other magnitudes, including size, height and brightness.

A key question is the origin of the SNARC effect. Some researchers point to brain lateralization: the differences in how the left and right sides of the brain are wired and used. Others suggest it is a broader cognitive habit: When people line things up, they prefer to sort them in an order that makes sense for them. For example, if you are comparing 5 inches to 9 inches, you might think of 5 on the left and 9 on the right. But if you were comparing 5 o’clock to 9 o’clock, you might think of 5 on the right and 9 on the left, based on the face of an analog clock.

But culture matters, too: Cultural experience learning that “small” is on the left and “large” is on the right results in a stronger SNARC effect. It’s therefore not yet clear where the SNARC effect comes from because in humans, biology and culture are all tangled up.

Do other animals have mental number lines?

Our field of study is comparative cognition. We study how primates and birds make sense of the world: how they think, learn and remember. Animals share many cognitive processes with humans, but lack cultural experiences like reading, writing and counting, making them ideal subjects for investigating this number-line question.

We and other researchers in our field started by developing a SNARC task for nonhuman animals. We showed orangutans and gorillas two sets of dots on a touchscreen, one on the left and the other on the right. If these animals naturally associate “less” with left and “more” with right, then on average they should have been more accurate and faster at picking out the smaller set when it appeared on the left than when it appeared on the right. But that is not what happened.

Looking closer at the individuals, we saw why: Some apes showed a left-to-right pattern and others preferred right-to-left. These individual preferences canceled each other out in our overall averaged results. This split suggested that apes, like humans, do organize magnitudes in space. But without cultural cues like reading or counting direction, each animal developed its own preferred ordering direction.

We and others have since replicated the original study in rhesus monkeys, pigeons and blue jays and our ongoing, not yet peer-reviewed study with chickens. In all of these cases, there’s strong evidence for spatial representation of magnitude, along with clear individual differences in direction.

Number-line direction may not be so clear-cut

Finding so much variability in animals made us think: Might individual people also differ more than the averages suggest? Many SNARC studies report only average scores combining all the people tested, making it hard to see whether individual people vary like other animals do.

So we ran a new study in which native English speakers from the United States judged different magnitudes ranging from Arabic numerals to dot quantities and the brightness of a square. The averages showed the expected left-to-right pattern. But individuals often didn’t.

Nearly a quarter of participants judging dot quantities showed a right-to-left pattern, contradicting their reading and counting history. When judging brightness of a square, the split was almost 50/50, erasing the average effect altogether, just like in animals.

Our results suggest that the SNARC effect isn’t a universal rule etched into human brains by culture. Instead, it looks more like a flexible way of thinking that can vary among individuals, species – or even from task to task in the same person. Some people like arranging things left-to-right, others prefer right-to-left, and the same is true of animals.

By looking beyond averages, we see a richer story: Minds can be flexible and inventive, whether they belong to apes, birds or humans.

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

– ref. How you map numbers in your mind isn’t universal, even among people who read the same language – https://theconversation.com/how-you-map-numbers-in-your-mind-isnt-universal-even-among-people-who-read-the-same-language-261258

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Timothy Welbeck, Director of the Center for Anti-Racism, Temple University

On the evening of May 21, 1796, Ona Judge made the daring decision to free herself.

Considering the prominence of her owner, the laws of the time and the dangerous trek to New Hampshire, a place where she could discreetly live freely, the act carried remarkable risk. Nevertheless, she slipped out of the President’s House undetected while the first family dined.

The house, then located at the intersection of 6th and Market streets in Philadelphia, served as the first executive mansion. It stood mere feet from Independence Hall, where the nation adopted its lofty language regarding freedom.

Years later, Judge described her narrow escape to Rev. Benjamin Chase in an interview for the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator. Judge told Chase, “I had friends among the colored people of Philadelphia, had my things carried there beforehand, and left Washington’s house while they were eating dinner.”

Prior to her escape, Judge served as a chambermaid in the President’s House. She spent years tending to Martha Washington’s every need: bathing and dressing her, grooming her hair, laundering her clothes, organizing her personal belongings, and even periodically caring for her children and grandchildren.

Being a chambermaid also included grueling daily tasks such as maintaining fires, emptying chamber pots and scrubbing floors.

Even though she engaged in this arduous labor as property of the Washingtons, living in Philadelphia provided Judge a glimpse of what freedom could eventually look like for her. Historians estimate that 5% to 9% of the city’s population at the time were free Black people. Prior to her escape, Judge befriended several of them.

In the spring of 1796, the Washingtons prepared to return to Virginia to resume private life. President Washington issued his farewell address in the fall of 1796, but he told family and close confidants of his plans earlier in the year.

During that time, Martha Washington made arrangements for their pending return to Mount Vernon. Her plans included bequeathing Ona Judge to her granddaughter, Elizabeth Parke Custis, as a wedding gift. Upon learning this, Judge made plans of her own.

In her interview with Chase she explained, “Whilst they were packing up to go to Virginia, I was packing to go, I didn’t know where; for I knew that if I went back to Virginia, I should never get my liberty.”

As a civil rights lawyer and professor in the Africology and African American Studies department at Temple University in Philadelphia, I study the intersection of race, racism and the law in the United States. I am pleased that the city of Philadelphia has decided to honor May 21 as “Ona Judge Day” starting this year, as I believe Judge’s story is vital to the telling of America’s history, despite attempts by the Trump administration to erase that legacy.

Dismantling history

Erica Armstrong Dunbar, a professor of African American Studies at Emory University, tells Judge’s fascinating story in her book “Never Caught: The Washingtons’ Relentless Pursuit of their Runaway Slave Ona Judge.”

Before January 2026, those who wished to learn about Judge could literally stand on the same walkway in Philadelphia where Judge once stood when she chose to flee. Several footprints, shaped like a woman’s shoes and embedded into the pathway outside of where the President’s House once stood, memorialize the beginning of Judge’s journey. These footprints composed part of an exhibit examining the paradox between slavery, freedom and the nation’s founding.

The exhibit, “Freedom and Slavery in the Making of a New Nation,” also included 34 explanatory panels bolted onto brick walls along that sidewalk. They provided biographical details about the nine people the Washingtons owned while living in the presidential mansion. The exhibit presented the sobering reality that our nation’s first president enslaved people while he held the nation’s highest office.

This changed in late January when the National Park Service dismantled the slavery exhibit at Philadelphia Independence National Historic Park. The removal sparked intense, immediate outrage from people across the country dismayed by the attempt to suppress unfavorable aspects of American history.

Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker responded swiftly. “Let me affirm, for the residents of the city of Philadelphia, that there is a cooperative agreement between the city and the federal government that dates back to 2006,” she said in a public statement. “That agreement requires parties to meet and confer if there are to be any changes made to an exhibit.”

The city of Philadelphia later sued Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and National Park Service acting Director Jessica Bowron. Pennsylvania subsequently filed an amicus brief in support of the city’s lawsuit.

After an inspection of the exhibit’s panels, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, who oversaw the case, ruled that the government must mitigate any potential damage to them while they are stored.

Civil rights activist and Philadelphia-based attorney Michael Coard had an opportunity to visit and examine the exhibits in storage prior to a ruling from Rufe that ultimately ordered their restoration. Coard led the fight to create and preserve the exhibit and later led the fight to restore it.

Limiting discussion of race

In ruling to “reinstall all panels, displays, and video exhibits that were previously in place,” Rufe referenced George Orwell’s “1984.” She chided the federal government’s efforts to “dissemble and disassemble historical truths.” Critics had raised similar concerns and argued that the National Park Service’s dismantling of the exhibit was an attempt to “whitewash history” and erase stories like Ona Judge’s.

Avenging the Ancestors Coalition, a Philadelphia-based organization dedicated to preserving Black history, has scheduled a celebration on May 21, 2026, at Independence Hall to honor Ona Judge Day and Judge’s courageous escape more than two centuries ago.

Organizers feel greater urgency to share this history around slavery in the U.S. because of actions by the federal government that seek to suppress it. For example, the Trump administration has restored and reinstalled two Confederate monuments of Albert Pike in Washington and Arlington National Cemetery, while it removed the slavery exhibit in Philadelphia.

Moreover, during the first week of his second term, Trump signed multiple executive orders to eliminate
diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Similarly, during the first Trump administration, the federal government engaged in various efforts to counterbalance the 1619 Project, a project spearheaded by Pulitzer-winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones that discussed the 400th anniversary of slavery’s beginnings in America. The 1619 Project spawned yearslong backlash. This included the 1776 Commission, created during the first Trump administration, which tried to discredit the conclusions of the 1619 project.

It is all part of a broader pattern across the country to limit how public institutions broach topics pertaining to race and racism.

This pattern has intensified as the United States prepares to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the framers signing the Declaration of Independence. As the nation celebrates its history, it must decide how much of it to explore.

_This is an updated version of an article originally published on Feb. 11, 2026.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

Timothy Welbeck has colleagues and affiliates who are members of Avenging the Ancestors Coalition, an organization which is mentioned in this article.

– ref. Philadelphia will celebrate Ona Judge Day to honor Martha Washington’s enslaved maid who made a daring escape to freedom – https://theconversation.com/philadelphia-will-celebrate-ona-judge-day-to-honor-martha-washingtons-enslaved-maid-who-made-a-daring-escape-to-freedom-283353

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Jamie Rowen, Associate Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

Memorial Day is an apt time to reflect on the long-term consequences of war. Among them are substance use, mental health problems, homelessness and jail time for those who served in the military.

About 8% of all Americans in prisons or jails are veterans, according to the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank. Veterans end up incarcerated largely because of substance use and mental health disorders, both of which also contribute to homelessness.

For more than 15 years, one tool for helping veterans break out of addiction has been Veterans Treatment Courts. These programs help veterans accused or convicted of crimes address the challenges driving their involvement in the criminal legal system.

Veterans Treatment Courts require a dedicated clinician and need to provide access to counseling, housing support and other social services to meet veterans’ needs. For this, they must have funding from the government. As a legal scholar studying the use of criminal law to aid veterans, my research shows that these programs, which exist in every state except Connecticut and Vermont, can be very effective. But they only work when they have the staffing and the resources to support veterans’ complex needs.

However, since 2025, massive cuts to the Department of Veteran Affairs as well as to publicly funded healthcare such as Medicaid and Medicare, which are widely used by veterans, are making it harder for veterans to access healthcare.

What are Veterans Treatment Courts?

Veterans Treatment Courts are a subset of the drug treatment courts that were created by judges and criminal legal reformers beginning in 1988. These courts are an alternative to jail for people arrested or convicted for crimes that may be related to substance use disorders.

The idea was to allow courts to address the root causes of criminal behavior rather than simply punish people who committed crimes. Specialized treatment courts were soon developed to provide support for specific issues, such as mental health, or to groups accused of specific crimes, such as sex work.

In 2008, a judge in Buffalo recognized that veterans in his drug treatment court would benefit from support from other veterans and the comprehensive services from the VA. So he launched a distinct program just for veterans that soon received national media attention. Veterans Treatment Courts now operate in over 745 courthouses.

Eligibility varies across courts, but typically requires that the person have served in the military and that the crime they committed is not considered so serious that it deserves incarceration. While these programs are funded through a variety of sources, such as local and state governments, the federal government offers tens of millions of dollars every year for local courthouses to set up Veterans Treatment Courts.

Veterans Treatment Courts have a variety of requirements for participants. Once admitted to the program, participants must attend a hearing where they talk to the judge about how they are doing. They must also take drug tests and attend therapy appointments. They may also have to show that they have stable housing and employment and that they have performed community service or engaged in other activities that indicate they are connected to their communities and therefore at lower risk for substance use or criminal behavior.

If participants meet program requirements, they graduate. Graduation usually means some sort of legal benefit, such as dropped charges and fines or the termination of probation.

Resources are key to success

Advocates suggest that Veterans Treatment Courts are more effective than jail or prison in preventing people from committing new crimes, and that treatment courts in general cost less than incarceration. But studies on whether they help veterans more than alternatives such as drug treatment courts or a regular criminal court have been inconclusive.

My research shows that treatment courts, in general, are most effective if they have dedicated staff and access to services to address substance use as well as housing insecurity. That level of support is exactly what the VA provides.

Veterans with VA benefits not only receive outpatient and inpatient substance use treatment, but they are able to access federally funded education and housing support unavailable to most U.S. citizens. Even Veterans Treatment Court participants who are ineligible for VA healthcare benefit from the unique levels of public support and state-funded programs for veterans in the U.S.

All this gives Veterans Treatment Courts the resources to help their participants more than other treatment courts or regular criminal courts can.

A program under threat

Recognizing the connection between veteran homelessness and incarceration, the federal government has put millions of dollars into the VA to help veterans in the criminal legal system. Congress annually authorizes tens of millions of dollars to support VA clinicians working in Veterans Treatment Courts. In January 2026, Congress even created a new center dedicated to this goal.

However, despite this support, the federal funding cuts for both the VA and mental health treatment more generally present numerous challenges for Veterans Treatment Courts. Tens of thousands of VA employees have left the agency since President Donald Trump took office. This has lead to staffing shortages that undermine care for all veterans.

Staff stability is especially important for these programs’ viability and success. My research shows that funding cuts lead to high turnover and low morale. When the Department of Health and Human Services sent a notice canceling US$2 billion worth of funding in January 2026, treatment courts were scrambling to figure out how they could staff their programs. Though this money was restored, the cancellation showed treatment court staff that their work could end without warning.

Given that the country’s criminal legal system is already overburdened, enabling Veterans Treatment Courts to do their vital work does more than help veterans. In my view, this program also models how comprehensive social services can help people struggling with substance use disorders, mental health problems, housing insecurity and other challenges.

As people recover from past wars and return from ongoing conflicts, they will need the country’s continued investment to reintegrate and thrive.

Jamie Rowen receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Special courts helps veterans stay out of jail – but funding cuts to VA and government programs are threatening their work – https://theconversation.com/special-courts-helps-veterans-stay-out-of-jail-but-funding-cuts-to-va-and-government-programs-are-threatening-their-work-275742

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Steven K. Green, Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Religion, Law & Democracy, Willamette University

Thousands of Americans prayed on the National Mall on May 17, 2026, during “Rededicate 250”: a day-long rally to “come together in prayer and worship ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday,” as organizers described it. U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, one of many Republican politicians and conservative Christian leaders to speak, led a prayer to “rededicate the United States of America as one nation under God.”

Planned by Freedom 250, a public-private partnership, the rally prompted criticism that it blurred the lines separating church and state. According to the Pew Research Center, 73% of adults agree that religion should be kept separate from government policies, and only 19% of Americans say the United States should stop enforcing that principle.

But figures allied with the Trump administration have challenged the premise that the U.S. government should be – or was meant to be – separate from religion. In 2023, Johnson remarked that “The separation of church and state is a misnomer … it comes from a phrase that was in a letter that Jefferson wrote. It’s not in the Constitution. And what he was explaining is they did not want the government to encroach upon the church – not that they didn’t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life.”

As a scholar of American legal and religious history, I have written extensively about the development of religious freedom in the U.S., and the origins of the separation of church and state.

Two of the Founding Fathers shaped American views on these topics more than any other: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Yet their views have also become lightning rods for controversy as the “wall” between church and state comes under scrutiny.

My 2024 book, “The Grand Collaboration,” seeks to answer several questions: What was Jefferson’s and Madison’s understanding of religious freedom? And why were they so deeply committed to that principle?

Bedrock of law – in Virgina and beyond

Jefferson wrote the Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom in 1777, the most comprehensive declaration of religious freedom at the time. The bill guaranteed freedom of conscience, protected religious assemblies from government oversight, prohibited government funding of religious institutions and boldly declared that religious opinions were outside the authority of civil officials.

Several years later, Madison guided these ideals into law. His “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” a protest against a proposal to support Christian teachers with tax money, affirmed the values of church-state separation and religious equality. He helped defeat the proposal – and set the stage for Virginia to adopt Jefferson’s bill.

As president, Jefferson went on to pen a letter to a Baptist association in Connecticut where he immortalized the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Bill of Rights contains two clauses about religion, both in the First Amendment: that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

What qualifies as “establishment of religion,” however, is open to debate.

In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced church-state separation as the guiding principle for interpreting the religion clauses, relying extensively on the two Virginians’ writings and actions. As Justice Hugo Black wrote, “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”

The duo’s documents served as the authority for the legal principle of church-state separation, and for more than five decades, their bona fides remained unquestioned in the law.

Shift at SCOTUS

Criticism of church-state separation intensified in the 1980s. As the religious right grew into a political force, commentators argued that the concept was anti-religious and did not represent the prevailing views about church and state during the founders’ time.

In recent decades, such arguments have attracted politicians and jurists, including members of the Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas has written that the court’s earlier separationist interpretations of the Constitution “sometimes bordered on religious hostility.” Legal scholar Philip Hamburger has declared that “the constitutional authority for separation is without historical foundation” and “should at best be viewed with suspicion.”

Several recent Supreme Court decisions have rejected a separationist approach to church-state matters. For example, the conservative majority has allowed taxpayer dollars to be used at religious schools, the display of religious symbols on government property, and religious expression by public school employees.

In a 2022 dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor bemoaned that the court has turned the separation of church and state from a “constitutional commitment” to a “constitutional violation.”

The justices’ earlier reliance on Jefferson and Madison has borne the brunt of criticism that their views on church-state matters did not represent their peers, or that neither man was in favor of separation as he has been portrayed.

Exchange of ideas

To better understand Jefferson’s and Madison’s beliefs, I examined many of the 2,300 letters between the two on “Founders Online,” a National Archives website. I also looked at correspondence with other acquaintances.

Both founders had deistic leanings, meaning they believed in a supreme being, but thought science and reason were the best paths to understanding religion. They were only nominally observant Christians, but more protected from religious intolerance than other “dissenters” due to their high social standing and affiliation with the Anglican Church.

All the more striking, then, that they worked throughout their lives to advance religious freedom.

Religious matters were never far from their minds. For instance, in Madison and Jefferson’s exchanges discussing the need for a bill of rights, freedom of conscience was invariably at the top of the list. Both were convinced that government should avoid supporting religion, even if no particular religion was given preference. They also insisted that people should have broad religious freedoms.

These views were clearly on the vanguard, but other religious rationalists and religious dissenters also advocated a comprehensive understanding of religious freedom.

Both men were committed to advancing religious freedom because they saw it as deeply entwined with freedom of inquiry and conscience. “Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error,” Jefferson wrote in 1784. Allowing people to investigate ideas freely “will support the true religion,” because “Truth can stand by itself.”

Similarly, Madison declared “the freedom of conscience to be a natural and absolute right.”

In their view, free inquiry was the fount of other rights. Religious freedom, for example, was a subset of freedom of conscience. And a healthy separation of church and state was key to ensuring those freedoms.

‘A pillar of support’

The letters reveal the extent to which Jefferson and Madison complemented and reinforced each other’s attitudes toward church and state. They also reveal the close intellectual and emotional affection that each man held for the other, and how much each man valued the other’s support.

In their final exchanges before Jefferson’s death on July 4, 1826, he implored Madison, “To myself, you have been a pillar of support thro’ life. Take care of me when dead, and be assured that I shall leave with you my last affections.”

Madison responded with similar affection: “You cannot look back to the long period of our private friendship & political harmony, with more affecting recollections than I do.”

Jefferson’s and Madison’s half-century of collaboration on behalf of religious freedom and equality is an important chapter in the nation’s founding history. I believe its legacy should be remembered and celebrated, not discarded.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on June 25, 2024.

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

– ref. What Jefferson and Madison would have thought about ‘rededicating’ the US to God – https://theconversation.com/what-jefferson-and-madison-would-have-thought-about-rededicating-the-us-to-god-283311

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Sophia A. McClennen, Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature, Penn State

Stephen Colbert’s final episode as host of “The Late Show” on May 21, 2026, won’t mark the end of his career.

But as a scholar of political satire, I think it offers a chance to reflect on the lasting impact of his comedy, which has spanned his work as a correspondent on “The Daily Show,” his conservative pundit persona on “The Colbert Report” and his reinvention on “The Late Show.”

The best satirists do more than entertain. They influence public discourse and leave lasting marks on political life. This group includes towering writers such as Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain, alongside performers like Lenny Bruce and George Carlin.

In my view, Stephen Colbert has earned a spot in the top tier. Here are five reasons why.

1. He didn’t just satirize the news – he informed the public

Most satirists offer wry commentary about political events.

Colbert often did something more ambitious: He helped audiences understand them.

Critics have long dismissed political comedy as superficial entertainment, but Colbert’s satire frequently offered valuable information to the public.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision transformed campaign finance law, tilting political influence toward wealthy people and corporations. As host of the “Colbert Report,” the comedian responded by creating an ongoing series of “Colbert Super PAC” segments. Working with former Federal Election Commission Chair Trevor Potter, Colbert was able to translate the opaque mechanics of campaign finance law into accessible civic education.

It’s hard to fully track the impact of this approach. But a 2007 Pew Research Center study did find that audiences for satirical news programs such as “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” scored high on political knowledge measures, outperforming audiences who only consumed political news from traditional outlets.

That urge to use satire as a vehicle for civic education continued after Colbert became host of “The Late Show” in 2015.

With debates raging over the border wall proposed by the first Trump administration, Colbert brought experts on to the program to break down the engineering, financial and logistical realities of building one that spanned the entirety of the U.S.-Mexico border. Yes, the absurdity of the physics and finances elicited laughs. But Colbert also helped viewers understand why Trump’s promises were implausible.

2. He gave Americans a new political vocabulary

When the world is absurd, the satirist uses ironic wit to make sense of it.

Colbert excelled at distilling the spin and duplicity of politics into memorable soundbites.

On the first episode of “The Colbert Report” in 2005, he introduced the word “truthiness” to describe the tendency to prefer what “feels true” over what the evidence supports. It incisively gave a name to a deceptive political tactic, one that the Bush administration had repeatedly used, from “Mission Accomplished,” to “weapons of mass destruction” and “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

“Truthiness” took on a life of its own. Merriam-Webster named it Word of the Year in 2006.

Colbert continued this rhetorical work on “The Late Show.” For example, in February 2017, after Donald Trump escalated his attacks on the press by labeling major news outlets “the enemy of the American people,” the comedian shifted from parody to diagnosis. He foregrounded the phrase’s authoritarian history, insisting that the rhetoric signaled a meaningful escalation in attacks on First Amendment rights, rather than a passing controversy.

In other words: There was nothing to laugh about here.

3. He blurred the line between satire and direct action

Media scholars have increasingly noted how political comedians now function as hybrid figures who blur journalism, entertainment and civic engagement. According to communications scholar Joseph Faina, Colbert may be one of the clearest examples of that shift.

Colbert’s satirical presidential campaign in South Carolina in 2007 mocked the theater of American electoral politics. He actually attempted to enter the race through official channels, only to be blocked by the South Carolina Democratic Party. But even in his failure to appear on the ballot, he was able to show how party control and media spectacle, not just voter choice, structure the field of viable candidates.

In 2010, he held a rally with Jon Stewart on the National Mall before a crowd of over 200,000 people. Assuming his conservative pundit persona, Colbert blended irony and sincerity, mocking the self-seriousness, sensationalism and outrage-driven news cycles of cable news through his competing calls for “sanity” and “fear.” But the event was also designed to motivate voter turnout in the midterm elections.

That interventionist impulse continued on “The Late Show.” During the 2020 election cycle, for example, Colbert encouraged voting through segments like “Better Know a Ballot.” A riff on his previous “Better Know a District” from “The Colbert Report,” the “Better Know a Ballot” series was designed to educate viewers about ballot access, voting procedures and the practical elements of democratic participation.

4. He measurably influenced political behavior

Claims about comedians changing politics can easily become exaggerated. But Colbert’s influence has empirical support.

Research by political communication scholars Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan Morris found that exposure to political satire can increase viewers’ sense of what’s known as “political efficacy” – the belief that they can understand and engage with politics. Other studies suggest satirical news audiences are often more politically active than they’re assumed to be.

Colbert is repeatedly cited in these studies as one of the prime examples of a satirist who makes an impact.

Take, for instance, the so-called “Colbert bump,” where candidates who appear on his programs experience boosts in fundraising, visibility and media coverage. Political scientist James H. Fowler found that Democratic candidates who appeared on “The Colbert Report” experienced a 44% increase in campaign donations within 30 days of their appearance.

A similar effect could be seen on “The Late Show.”

After Colbert interviewed Texas state Rep. James Talarico, a U.S. Senate candidate, in February 2026, CBS canceled the segment, claiming – perhaps disingenuously – that the network could be punished for not adhering to the FCC’s “equal time” rule, which requires broadcast stations to offer comparable airtime to opposing candidates.

A taped version of the interview was nonetheless posted to YouTube, where it racked up over 9 million views, helping fuel Talarico’s US$27 million first-quarter fundraising haul, the largest amount ever raised by a U.S. Senate candidate in the first quarter of an election year.

5. He redefined American patriotism

To rank Colbert among America’s most important satirists requires one additional consideration: his role in redefining not only what America stands for, but what it means to be patriotic.

Many satirists lean toward cynicism, portraying politics as hopelessly corrupt and public life as fundamentally absurd. Not Colbert.

As linguist Geoffrey Nunberg argued in his 2006 book, “Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show,” conservatives had claimed a monopoly on patriotism as the 20th century drew to a close. At the same time, many of them promoted what’s known as “blind patriotism,” in which any criticism of the U.S. is cast as evidence of insufficient national loyalty.

Colbert’s satire directly challenged that framework.

To expose that performative patriotism, Colbert’s persona on “The Colbert Report” wrapped itself in exaggerated patriotic imagery: flags, bombast, overconfidence and chest-thumping nationalism.

But the joke was never America itself. The target was a performance of patriotism that treated dissent as disloyalty, emotional certainty as evidence and partisan identity as civic virtue.

As I argue in my 2011 book, “Colbert’s America,” Colbert’s satire consistently distinguished between nationalism and democratic patriotism. The former demands unquestioning loyalty. The latter demands accountability. For example, through segments like “Threat-Down” on “The Colbert Report,” he satirized the way nationalism often depends on exaggerating fictive dangers and denouncing symbolic, external enemies.

In that sense, Colbert belongs in a distinctly American satirical tradition that stretches back to Benjamin Franklin. The great American satirists have used humor not to reject the national project, but to expose the gap between its ideals and its realities. They reshape how citizens understand power and civic responsibility.

For nearly three decades, Stephen Colbert has done exactly that.

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

– ref. 5 reasons Stephen Colbert is one of the most important satirists in American history – https://theconversation.com/5-reasons-stephen-colbert-is-one-of-the-most-important-satirists-in-american-history-282564

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Anisah Bagasra, Associate Professor of Psychology, Kennesaw State University

Many Muslim Americans are fearful following a shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego that left three worshipers dead. Investigators reportedly found hate speech and anti-Islamic writing inside the vehicle of the suspected shooters, who killed themselves soon after the attack.

The director of the Islamic Center, Taha Hassane, condemned the attack while also encouraging individuals to respond with tolerance and love. “All of us are responsible for spreading the culture of tolerance, the culture of love,” he said, while lamenting the conditions that had led to such violence.

The attack comes just one week before the celebration of Eid al-Adha, an annual festival celebrating the Prophet Abraham’s – Ibrahim in Arabic – willingness to sacrifice his son in obedience to God, and the conclusion of the annual Hajj – the pilgrimage to Mecca, one of the five pillars of Islam.

It also comes on the heels of ongoing tensions in the Middle East and increasing political rhetoric in the United States. Republicans in Congress held hearings during the week of May 13, 2026 titled “Sharia-Free America.” This reflects a long-standing anti-Muslim trope that portrays Muslims as invaders who want to impose sharia – Islamic religious law – on all Americans. Many Muslim Americans are concerned because the rise of anti-Muslim bigotry among politicians has been mostly met with silence.

Muslim Americans have been warning that the increased rhetoric targeting Islam and Muslims endangers their community. As a scholar who studies Islamophobia and its impact on Muslim Americans, I have observed how the war with Iran intensified anti-Muslim sentiment online. A study by the Center for the Study of Organized Hate found that in the first six days of the conflict, the average number of Islamophobic posts on X jumped from an average of 2,000 posts daily to 6,000.

Research consistently shows that negative portrayals of Muslims shape public attitudes toward them and can lead to increased discrimination, psychological harm and hate crimes like the shooting in San Diego.

Increase in Islamophobia

Islamophobia in the United States tends to surge during global conflicts, political campaigns and terrorist attacks. Human Rights First, an organization that works to promote human rights in the U.S. and abroad, documented surges in Islamophobia in 2015 following the Syrian refugee crisis, when a large number of people were displaced. That same year the 2015 attacks in Paris and shooting in San Bernardino, California, intensified public anxiety about terrorism. A surge in crimes against Muslims followed.

Islamophobic rhetoric in the U.S., in which Muslims were often framed as a security threat, intensified during Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and continued into his first presidency. Burton Speakman, a scholar of digital media, and I found an increasing acceptance of such rhetoric among the political right in social media posts from 2016-19.

Social media posts and comments showed an increasing use of dehumanizing language toward Muslims. In a study I conducted in 2020, a majority of 830 Muslim Americans reported encountering the most Islamophobic content on Facebook, followed by Twitter and Instagram. This shift was also reflected in the language and coverage of Islam in right-wing media, which often portrayed Muslims as invaders wanting to impose sharia and as a drain on social welfare.

Mainstream media can also amplify negative depictions of Muslims by often discussing Islam within the context of terrorism and portraying Muslims more negatively than other racial, ethnic or religious minority groups.

Hate crimes tend to increase alongside Islamophobic rhetoric. During 2016, a period with high rates of Islamophobic rhetoric, there were 307 reported incidents – the highest recorded number since immediately following 9/11. The numbers dropped in 2017 but were followed by an increase in 2024 with the start of the Israel-Hamas war. That year, 288 anti-Muslim hate crimes were reported.

A 2025 poll found that 63% of American Muslims reported experiencing religious discrimination, with many reporting at least one such incident every year since 2016.

Mental health of Muslim Americans

The cumulative effects of Islamophobia have an impact an American Muslims’ mental health and access to care.

Numerous studies since 9/11 link the high rates of discrimination experienced by the Muslim American
community to higher rates of depression. Experiences of discrimination also lead some Muslim Americans to believe they are not viewed as being American.

Thirty-one percent of participants in my 2020 study described the impact of social media on their mental health. Many said they avoided displaying their Muslim identity in social media posts, supporting a Muslim political candidate on social media, or even sharing religious content or videos. Some just withdrew – 27% deactivated or deleted their social media accounts.

In addition, many Muslims reported feeling discouraged from seeking both physical and psychological treatment from non-Muslim providers. This leads Muslim Americans to significantly underutilize available services compared to other ethnic and religious minority groups.

A 2015 study found that nearly one-third of Muslim Americans reported experiencing discrimination in health care settings, which has an impact on their trust in providers. The majority reported rude treatment by providers, insensitivity regarding modesty requirements, or having their pain disregarded. One participant in that study said: “Going into a surgery, health care providers didn’t recognize the importance of me keeping my hijab on and wanting most of my body covered.”

In my 2023 study, a number of participants described personal experiences with mental health professionals who seemed not to see them as individuals beyond their religious affiliation. One participant described a provider as being “quick to attribute problems” to religion or culture. “I worry about them stereotyping and end up feeling as if I’m on the defense,” this participant said.

My most recent study, conducted in 2024, which is currently under review, asked 325 Muslim Americans who had used any psychological services about their health-seeking behavior: 56% said they were worried about provider bias; 57% were worried about being misunderstood.

Following Trump’s travel ban targeting several Muslim countries in 2017, a study conducted by researchers at the Yale School of Public Health found that many Muslim Americans skipped their primary care appointments. At the same time, their visits to the emergency room went up.

Addressing the challenges

In response, a number of initiatives have emerged at the local and national levels.

One approach involves increasing mental health literacy within Muslim communities and creating networks of mental health professionals working with Muslim clients.

For example, mental health professionals and community leaders are working to increase mental health literacy both digitally and through in-person education. Muslim community members learn about symptoms of mental health disorders through training, such as Mental Health First Aid. Online directories of Muslim mental health providers have also been created.

Another approach involves training mental health professionals. A team at Stanford University has created a six-part training module that provides therapists with knowledge of religious norms and an opportunity to reflect on their own possible biases.

Finally, Muslim researchers and providers have begun to develop therapies and resources that integrate Muslim beliefs and spiritual approaches with treatment. These include psychotherapy that is inspired by the Quran, the teachings of the prophet and spiritual practices such as self-reflection, prayer and mindfulness.

A vulnerable community

The war with Iran has fueled an increase in anti-Muslim rhetoric that has increasingly spilled into political discourse. In February 2026, for example, U.S. Rep. Randy Fine of Florida posted on X that “the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” In another post he wrote, “We need more Islamophobia, not less.” Similarly, U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas called for stopping the entry of “Muslims immigrating to America.”

The shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego has deepened fear of harassment and violence among an already vulnerable community.

Muslim Americans can often feel powerless in the face of such hostility. Greater public awareness, stronger advocacy and efforts to address the mental health impacts of anti-Muslim hatred are critical for a community that already feels vulnerable.

This is an updated version of an article first published on April 17, 2026.

Anisah Bagasra receives funding from Meta for Content Policy research in 2019

– ref. San Diego mosque shooting reflects how online rhetoric, media depictions and political discourse contribute to increased Islamophobia – https://theconversation.com/san-diego-mosque-shooting-reflects-how-online-rhetoric-media-depictions-and-political-discourse-contribute-to-increased-islamophobia-283267

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kelley Cotter, Assistant Professor of Information Sciences and Technology, Penn State

Anthropic, the company behind the generative AI tool Claude, claimed in March 2026 that it used an AI interviewer to conduct “the largest and most multilingual qualitative study” ever done. The AI tool collected responses from nearly 81,000 people about their visions for AI, spanning 70 languages and 159 countries. Anthropic contends that tools like this can enable researchers to conduct “rich, open-ended interviews at a very large scale.”

Qualitative research is useful for understanding the lived experiences of people. “Qualitative” refers to both the type of data that researchers collect and their purpose for conducting a study. Qualitative data includes text, images, audio, video and anything that isn’t a number. This is why the term “qualitative” is often discussed in contrast to “quantitative” – that is, numerical – data.

Qualitative research enables researchers to deeply explore the tensions, ambiguities and paradoxes that characterize everyday life. It also helps unpack how social norms, cultural dynamics and subjective experiences shape people’s perspectives, beliefs and attitudes.

So, can an AI model without lived experience or a capacity to self-reflect connect with people enough to understand their worlds?

We are researchers who specialize in qualitative research on digital technologies. Collectively, we have decades of experience developing, conducting and publishing interview studies, and we teach qualitative research methods to undergraduate and graduate students.

While AI tools can support social science research, they also have significant limitations. Not taking these limitations into account risks undermining the unique value of research that relies on human connection.

What is qualitative research?

Broadly speaking, qualitative inquiry is about exploring the meaning people give to experiences.

Qualitative inquiry often involves face-to-face interviews with individuals and groups. What this looks like in practice varies based on a researcher’s academic discipline, their philosophical approach and their personal background.

While the goal is to produce explanations about the world, qualitative inquiry is designed to reveal the nuanced ways people make meaning while accounting for the different contexts that shape their experiences.

For instance, our team has used qualitative inquiry to explore how parents, children and teachers navigate digital privacy issues. We’ve also used qualitative data to analyze how influencers, activists and everyday users make sense of and respond to social media algorithms.

Anthropic Interviewer can pose questions to participants and present follow-up questions based on a participant’s response. However, we argue that qualitative inquiry requires human capacities that an AI model lacks.

AI is programmed, human conversations are not

Unlike studies focused on quantitative data, qualitative inquiry relies on flexibility.

Research that collects quantitative data requires carefully managed study conditions. They often aim to test specific hypotheses and measure the relationship between variables. To establish the validity of their findings, researchers need to demonstrate that they controlled for confounding factors.

In contrast, qualitative studies are more open-ended. They typically consider how people understand or experience the world in context. Since the world is complex, messy and nuanced, interviewers may need to change their initial questions or add new ones to collect insightful data. In other words, researchers adapt the interview to follow the conversational flow.

To plan out the interactions Anthropic Interviewer would have with study participants, researchers need to specify core interview questions and give the program instructions on how to engage with participants. For its recent study on people’s visions for AI, some of the core questions Anthropic used include “What’s the last thing you used an AI chatbot for?” and “If you could wave a magic wand, what would AI do for you?” The company did not specify what prompts or hypotheses they fed the system to come up with follow-up questions for this study.

By relying on fixed instructions, Anthropic Interviewer does not have a conversation with a participant the way a human researcher does. Instead, it executes a series of tasks in response to prompt engineering. In a conversation, a human interviewer absorbs a variety of information from a participant – their words, tone, demeanor – and responds organically in a way that meets the moment. An AI interviewer, being a machine, can act only within the parameters set by the system designers. This means that even if it is trained on large datasets, as the Anthropic Interviewer is, it will not be able to account for the unique, often unspoken relational dynamics of new interviews.

Using an AI tool can generate qualitative data, but it is not the same as conducting qualitative inquiry.

AI does not have positionality

Most qualitative researchers see their identity, lived experiences and relationships to the people they study as central to their work. This positionality can be thought of as a series of lenses through which researchers approach their studies, such as their race, gender, beliefs, values, biases and life circumstances. These factors position researchers in relation to their area of focus – as insiders, outsiders or somewhere in between, depending on the context.

Anthropic Interviewer has no position in relation to the research it is meant to support, because it has no body, identity, life history or lived experiences. Even if prompted to imitate a particular perspective – such as from “one woman to another” – it will not “contain multitudes,” as poet Walt Whitman put it, like real people do.

As opposed to a real person with a personal perspective who can genuinely respond to a live conversation, AI models use probabilities to match the patterns of how a person may commonly act or speak. It may also be alienating for participants if an AI interviewer assumes a particular persona and changes how they respond. In some ways, Anthropic AI can present only what philosopher Donna Haraway called “a view from nowhere.”

Moreover, an absence of a personal lens does not imply neutrality. Because AI systems are trained on existing data, they can reflect the dominant stereotypes and worldviews of the time, including that of their developers, curators and the companies behind them.

The AI tool’s lack of positionality matters because this quality shapes every stage of research. This includes what questions researchers ask in interviews and how they ask them; how researchers filter information and interpret responses; and which topics they follow up on. Sharing things in common with participants – even just as a fellow human who can have firsthand experiences, thoughts and emotions – can be critical for data collection and analysis. It enables a deep, intuitive understanding of how participants perceive and interpret what they share.

A researcher’s personal lens also shapes how participants respond to them: what they choose to share and how comfortable they feel. For example, someone who grew up poor may feel more comfortable discussing debt and public assistance with someone who has a similar background than with someone who does not.

Without a personal lens, interviews can become flat and lack context. Questions may become mechanical, and the development of mutual understanding is limited. Participants may also respond differently when they sense the interviewer lacks a clear perspective.

AI cannot be reflexive

When researchers are able to reflect on their own assumptions, they can produce more thoughtful and responsible findings that avoid misrepresenting their participants. This reflexivity is another key human aspect of qualitative inquiry: researchers’ ongoing efforts to self-monitor the ways their personal background and choices over the course of a study may affect the work.

Good qualitative researchers do not try to eliminate their biases but instead try to account for them. They continually think about how their identity, experiences and perspectives shape their work and publicly share these reflections. While quantitative researchers see bias as a source of error, qualitative researchers see their viewpoints as assets in producing meaning.

For example, when our team interviews students for our studies, we consider how our dual roles as college professors and researchers may influence how we interpret our participants’ experiences, what they feel comfortable sharing and how they share it. Openly sharing such accounting provides important context for readers considering the findings, judging how far they can be applied elsewhere and building trust in the findings.

Anthropic Interviewer is not capable of reflexivity, because it has no frame of reference or capacity for self-reflection. As a machine, it cannot self-monitor its “choices” in interactions, consider how participants perceive it, or reflect on how these factors may shape what participants share or hold back. When readers cannot take stock of the ways researchers’ assumptions, values, beliefs and choices affected how they collected data, this can make the research seem less trustworthy.

Interviewing often helps researchers develop an empathetic connection to their study participants, which can help ensure their work is ethical and accountable. This deeply felt connection can guide researchers in respecting boundaries in interviews.

Empathy also helps researchers take care in honoring the thoughts, feelings and experiences of their participants by representing them as faithfully as possible.

Qualitative interviews still need humans

Anthropic Interviewer introduces new possibilities for qualitative research by enabling data collection at an unprecedented scale and speed. However, this does not mean that it does what human interviewers do in qualitative inquiry.

Research interviewing is not about extracting ready-made insights from research participants as efficiently as possible. It is about entering into other people’s realities and leveraging shared human experiences that make mutual understanding possible, both cognitively and emotionally.

As sociologist Douglas Ezzy once said, good interviews are about communion, not conquest.

Kelley Cotter has received funding from the National Science Foundation.

Priya C. Kumar has received funding from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).

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

– ref. AI interviewers can’t connect with people the way human researchers can – they can produce only data, not meaning – https://theconversation.com/ai-interviewers-cant-connect-with-people-the-way-human-researchers-can-they-can-produce-only-data-not-meaning-279437

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Geoff Emberling, Research Scientist in Archaeology, University of Michigan

When I first became co-director of an archaeological project at Jebel Barkal in northern Sudan in 2018, I was amazed by the site’s pyramids, temples and palaces. It had been an urban center in the ancient empire of Kush, which dominated the Nile Valley off and on for over 2,000 years, from 2000 B.C.E. to 350 C.E.

I was far from alone in admiring the ruins – European and American travelers have visited and archaeologists had documented the site for the past two centuries. More recently, Jebel Barkal was recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2003.

But researchers still know so little about the ancient city and its residents, particularly compared with other ancient cities of Egypt, Assyria, Greece and Rome. Where did nonroyal people live? What did they eat? We don’t even know how they got their water, since the site is about a mile away from where the Nile flows today. Could there have been a nearby channel of the Nile that has since filled in? What was this landscape like when Jebel Barkal was a major urban center? More broadly, how did changes in climate over the past 4,000 years affect the growth of the city?

Some of these questions can be studied by a field called geomorphology, the study of how the Earth’s surface changes, especially by erosion. To learn more about how the landscape around Jebel Barkal had changed over millennia, I invited two Dutch geomorphologists, Jan Peeters and Tim Winkels, who had previously worked on Nile landscapes in Egypt, to come to Sudan to design a study.

The Nile as a source of life

The Nile floods at the end of every summer, as rains from the Indian Ocean monsoon fall on the highlands of East Africa. The ancient historian Herodotus famously called Egypt “the gift of the Nile” because in Egypt. the rich silt the floods deposited every year made for fertile fields. Egyptians retained the floodwaters in ponds and basins to use later for irrigation.

Upstream in Sudan, however, the underlying geology and geomorphological setting is different. This stretch of the Nile is interrupted by bedrock outcrops that break the flow of the river by what are called cataracts: islands, rapids and even small waterfalls.

The Nile also cuts more deeply into the bedrock and is more confined to the riverbed in Sudan than in Egypt. The floodplains here are generally more limited. As a result, it’s harder to hold onto water to use for irrigation after the annual flood has passed.

Our team wanted to understand how the ancient city interacted with the Nile and how that relationship developed through time as climate and the local environment shifted. Our recent study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looked at how the Nile channel and floodplain and Jebel Barkal evolved over centuries.

To learn about the ancient landscape, we collected 26 sediment cores, averaging 26 feet (8 meters) in depth and 3 inches (8 centimeters) in diameter. These cores are like time capsules that preserve the stacked layers of sediment from Nile floods that accumulated gradually over thousands of years. Connecting the dots, 17 of our cores formed a line across the Sudanese Nile valley. A second group of nine cores focused on the area where the ancient city developed.

The work was physically challenging, due both to the unrelenting Saharan sun and the depth of the sediments. Together with a team of five local men, we spent weeks drilling the cores using hand augurs and a gas-powered drill.

Hatim Awad Abdullah was this group’s energetic leader. He had his own interest in the history of Nile flooding, in part because his father and grandfather had told him that the river used to flood different areas than it has in more recent times. Our conversations with Hatim were part of a broader effort on our project to engage members of the local community, and they informed and enriched our understanding of the landscape. Other projects in Sudan have taken similar steps toward community engagement.

Extracting info from the sediment layers

Once our team had extracted the long sediment cores, we laid them out in sections so the geomorphologists could document what was in them at different levels. Sediments at the top of the cores are more recent, those lower down come from earlier in time.

Finer clays, silts and coarser sands would all have been deposited by different processes. Gentle flooding from the Nile could have carried some of these particles. More turbulent water draining from the desert via seasonal drainage channels called wadis might have brought others. By working from the deepest, oldest parts of the core samples to the ground surface, the geomorphologists could reconstruct a sequence of flooding and sediment deposition over thousands of years.

Our next step was to try to establish dates for when the sediments at different levels were deposited. One set of information came from fragments of ancient pottery found in some of the cores. Our team’s ceramic specialist, Saskia Büchner-Matthews, was able to analyze these small pieces and could often tell by their color, texture and shape when they had been made.

Another line of evidence relied on a technique called optically stimulated luminescence dating. By measuring the energy given off by minerals in the sample, like quartz grains, this amazing technique establishes when a sediment was last exposed to light. In order for optically stimulated luminescence dating to work, the samples need to be kept in the dark, so we had to be careful that our sediments were collected in black opaque tubes. Our team member Liz Chamberlain did this labor-intensive analysis in a specialized lab at Wageningen University in The Netherlands.

Our results show, first of all, that there had been an ancient Nile channel close to Jebel Barkal, but more like 10,000 years ago – millennia before the people of Kush built their city here. By the time the site was first occupied around 2000 B.C.E., that channel had long since filled in. So we still don’t know for sure how the people of Jebel Barkal got their water, but it’s clear that the Nile wasn’t running right next to the city.

The data also shows that the floodplain began to build up from regular Nile flooding starting around 2000 B.C.E. This process continued until the early 20th century, when upstream dam construction altered the Nile’s natural flood regime. That gentle accumulation of fertile soil in the floodplain, which the people of Jebel Barkal used as agricultural fields, encompasses nearly the entire ancient history of the city.

The cores our team drilled show that the city grew during a time of abundant rains and productive, predictable Nile flooding that provided fertile soil for agriculture. It doesn’t look like local climate change is the reason Jebel Barkal eventually went into decline.

Our scientific results lend new weight to an inscription of the ancient Kushite king Taharqo, who ruled over both Nubia and Egypt from about 690-664 BCE. It records a gentle and particularly abundant flood in the sixth year of his reign.

“When the time for the rising of the Inundation came, it continued rising greatly each day and it passed many days rising at the rate of one cubit every day.

“It penetrated the hills of South-land, it overtopped the mounds of North-land, and the land was (again) Primeval Waters, an inert (expanse), without land being distinguishable from river. …

“Every man of Nubia was inundated with an abundance of everything, Egypt was in beautiful festival, and they thanked the god Amun for His Majesty.”

This research has been particularly satisfying for me because it helps build a richer picture of life in ancient Sudan, comparable in depth and detail to what we know about other ancient civilizations.

Geoff Emberling has received funding from the U.S. Department of State (through its Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation), the National Endowment for the Humanities, National Geographic, and private donors including Kitty Picken, Steve Klinsky, and Roger and Ann Cogswell. In addition to his position at the University of Michigan, he is a board member of the International Society for Nubian Studies and Secretary of the American Sudanese Archaeological Research Center.

– ref. How a shifting Nile landscape shaped the rise of the ancient empire of Kush in Sudan – https://theconversation.com/how-a-shifting-nile-landscape-shaped-the-rise-of-the-ancient-empire-of-kush-in-sudan-281841

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Eric Welch, Professor and Director, Center for Science, Technology & Environmental Policy Studies, Arizona State University

The American academic research engine has long been the envy of the world. Generally well-funded, labs in the United States have been able to attract the best minds who generate breakthroughs and train the next generation workforce that powers the U.S. economy. But since the start of the second Trump administration in January 2025, new federal policies have destabilized the American scientific enterprise.

The disruption generated by the Trump administration’s funding, DEI and visa policies has been well reported by the media. On an individual level, though, what do academic researchers think of all these changes and how have they been directly affected?

We are researchers affiliated with Arizona State University’s scientist opinion panel survey, known as SciOPS, a 5-year research program designed to monitor, understand and improve how scientists communicate with the public. We wanted to know more about the reality inside today’s universities as researchers grapple with Trump administration policies.

Along with our colleagues, we fielded a survey of randomly sampled members of the academic science community participating in the SciOPS panel. We obtained responses from 280 scientists from several fields, including biology, chemistry, civil and environmental engineering, computer and information science engineering, geography and public health from 131 universities.

Our results show dramatic, mostly negative, effects of federal policy changes on researchers, the research system and American competitiveness.

How research in US universities has changed

Any research enterprise thrives because of its ability to fund cutting-edge science and thus attract highly motivated, well-trained people. Since the second Trump administration took office in January 2025, just over half of the scientists in our survey report that their overall funding has declined.

Declines in federal funding have had knock-on effects. Around one-quarter of scientists reported that state and local and university internal funding have also declined. Another 9% reported that internal funding has increased, presumably as universities have provided emergency funds to researchers to support critical studies.

According to the scientists who responded to our survey, Trump administration policies have also affected the scientific workforce pipeline, hampering their ability to recruit internationally and domestically.

We hypothesize that these hiring issues can be related to visa and immigration policies, which make it difficult for international graduate students and postdocs to work in the U.S. or attend international conferences. Just over half of scientists in our survey reported that international students or postdocs have expressed concerns to them about deportation.

Concerns about longer-term career impacts are also to blame for trouble recruiting the next generation of researchers. Over 80% of surveyed scientists reported that graduate students or postdocs on their research team have increased concerns about future job prospects.

These impacts have taken a toll on scientists’ professional work environment and overall outlook. Over two-thirds reported more work-related stress and almost half reported increased workloads since January 2025. About half reported decreased work motivation.

How are scientists and engineers reacting?

We found scientists’ responses to be a mixture of resilience, acquiescence and considering an exit.

While many scientists said they were less motivated at work, most reported no change in their efforts to obtain federal research funding. Small proportions did report successfully increasing their efforts to obtain funding from non-federal sources.

Our survey also asked scientists whether they had taken any self-censoring actions since January 2025 due to concern over potential negative consequences for their work or career. Over half reported having reviewed or adjusted key words in research proposals, and almost half said they’d reframed research topics. Forty-three percent had also cautioned students or collaborators to be careful what they say publicly and more than a third had abandoned plans on one or more research topics.

Although scientists are adopting strategies to cope with the new challenges, nearly two-thirds of the scientists in our sample appear to be considering one or more other career options.

Scientists look to the long term

Scientists and engineers in our sample have strong opinions about the impacts of current U.S. science policy. A large majority (87%) believe the administration’s actions have influenced research priorities more than previous administrations. Most scientists in our survey had a negative opinion of the Trump administration’s overall changes to science policy.

Scientists in our sample believed that administration policies have had a negative effect on the future scientific workforce and the ability of scientists and engineers in the U.S. to produce breakthroughs and discoveries and contribute to national welfare.

Large majorities believe these policies have harmed public perceptions of the integrity of U.S. scientists (85%) and hurt public trust in science (84%).

Academic scientists’ reactions to the Trump administration’s changes to science policy are perhaps not surprising given the perceived level of threat these actions represent to the research community. What is less certain is whether the dramatic changes we are currently witnessing – cuts to grant funding, politicization of research, downsizing of federal agencies, restrictive immigration policies, attacks on the autonomy of higher education and more – are temporary or if they represent the initial phase of a transition to a new research environment with less federal support for American science.

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

– ref. Self-censorship, more stress, tougher recruiting – we asked US researchers how the Trump administration’s science policies have affected them – https://theconversation.com/self-censorship-more-stress-tougher-recruiting-we-asked-us-researchers-how-the-trump-administrations-science-policies-have-affected-them-280968

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Caitlin Grady, Associate Professor of Environmental Management and Systems Engineering, George Washington University

Formula 1 auto racing is one of the most energy-intensive and logistically complex sports on the planet. The events involve cars, of course, but also long-haul freight, international travel, temporary event infrastructure, and a global calendar that keeps people and equipment moving almost constantly.

Motorsports companies are not necessarily going to lead the transition to cleaner energy sources as the world seeks to limit the climate changes resulting from burning fossil fuels. But Formula 1 is a global operation with a large audience and a looming deadline for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions. It also has the same kinds of operational realities many industries face when trying to reduce their emissions: transportation, freight, energy use and the temptation to count the hardest remaining emissions as someone else’s problem.

F1 has pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2030 across its full operations. That means it will emit as little carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as possible, using methods that include shifting to the use of alternative fuels in race cars. The organization says it will balance any remaining emissions by capturing carbon back from the atmosphere or purchasing credits from organizations that capture carbon themselves. The organization publishes sustainability data updates to demonstrate its progress.

We used that data in an interactive computer model that lets anyone who wants to explore what it will take for Formula 1 to fulfill that promise in reality. Users can change various assumptions about fuel use, increase renewable electricity use and even change the racing calendar.

Our analysis finds that F1 racing could achieve substantial cuts in emissions – but getting all the way to net zero will still require carbon offsets. That leaves F1 with choices, gains, limits and then a final question about what counts as “zero.”

From the track to the road

Formula 1 racing has long provided opportunities to test technologies that later appear in everyday transportation. Hybrid systems that use gasoline and electric batteries to power the engine, regenerative braking that recovers energy when a car slows down, and energy recovery from exhaust heat all advanced through F1 before becoming common in everyday cars.

Starting in 2026, Formula 1 cars are set to run on 100% advanced sustainable fuel made from renewable or waste-derived feedstocks like municipal waste or forestry waste. The international governing body of auto racing, the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile, and F1 leaders have explicitly described that fuel mix as a drop-in technology that could directly replace fossil fuel gasoline, with potential use in everyday vehicles.

Significant room for improvement

Our analysis suggests the sport can make significant emissions cuts through concrete operational changes. Cars can use cleaner fuels; shipping and logistics can choose lower-emission options; and more buildings can use renewable energy.

Our model shows that one of the most effective options is to group races more tightly by geography. If all the races scheduled for Europe, for instance, took place in successive weeks, followed by several weeks of racing in Asia, people and freight would travel less over the course of a season than they do now, shifting back and forth across continents.

But the race calendar is not dictated solely by logistics. Commercial deals, weather, tourism efforts, host-country priorities and broadcaster demands all help determine which races happen in which cities on what dates.

Under realistic assumptions, our analysis is that F1 appears capable of cutting its direct emissions by at least 50% from its 2018 baseline.

But in our scenarios, even significant operational improvements won’t get F1 all the way to net zero by 2030. Under the scenario that includes the most aggressive operational cuts, about a quarter of F1’s yearly emissions still remain to be addressed.

Compensating for unavoidable emissions

To achieve net-zero emissions, Formula 1 will need to purchase carbon offsets to cover the remaining gap.

Buying carbon offsets, also called carbon credits, means spending money to make up for emissions a company can’t eliminate itself. For instance, a company could pay an organization to plant hundreds or thousands of trees, which would remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in wood for many years.

The markets in which carbon offsets are bought and sold have faced years of scrutiny over whether credited benefits are real, whether the activities like tree-planting would have happened anyway, and whether they remove carbon from the atmosphere for a suitably long time.

Those questions matter for Formula 1 because the final step from deep emissions cuts to “net zero” depends not just on whether credits exist, but on what kind they are and whether they should count.

A corporate challenge

Other companies are also struggling with these questions about carbon offsets in their climate plans. For instance, Microsoft, one of the world’s largest buyers of carbon removal credits, announced in April 2026 that it was pausing some new carbon-removal credit purchases.

For Formula 1, announcing the target was the easy part. The harder part is deciding what to do when technology and operational improvements get most of the way there, but not all the way. At that point, climate strategy becomes less about innovation alone and more about governance, credibility and what people are willing to count as credit.

Americans will be watching: The Netflix documentary series, “Drive to Survive,” which debuted in 2019 and is now in its eighth season, has significantly boosted Formula 1’s audience in the U.S. The organization’s sustainability efforts are part of a public story about whether a global entertainment business can align a high-performance identity with changing expectations about climate responsibility.

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

– ref. Formula 1 racing shows the hard part of reaching net-zero carbon emissions isn’t the engineering – https://theconversation.com/formula-1-racing-shows-the-hard-part-of-reaching-net-zero-carbon-emissions-isnt-the-engineering-281495