The Conversation – Page 160 – MIL Submissions Engine

April 30, 2026

Synthetic biology promised to rewrite life – with the death of its pioneer, J. Craig Venter, how close are scientists?

Source: The Conversation – USA – By André O. Hudson, Dean of the College of Science, Professor of Biochemistry, Rochester Institute of Technology

First came the Human Genome Project, then came the field of synthetic biology. Alena Butusava/iStock via Getty Images Plus

When scientist J. Craig Venter and his team announced in 2010 that they had created the first cell controlled by a fully synthetic genome, it marked a turning point in how scientists think about life.

For the first time, DNA – the molecule that carries the instructions for life – had been written on a computer, assembled in a laboratory and used to control a living cell. The achievement suggested something profound: Life might not only be understood but designed.

A biologist widely recognized for his groundbreaking contributions to genomics, including leading efforts to sequence the first draft of the human genome, Venter and his team’s successful creation of the first synthetic bacterial cell is considered pivotal to the field of synthetic biology.

J. Craig Venter in a suit at a conference, looking off-camera — J. Craig Venter was a decorated scientist and entrepreneur.
Mauricio Ramirez/Science History Institute via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

By combining biology and engineering, synthetic biology seeks to design and build new biological systems or redesign existing ones for useful purposes. Rather than only observing how life works, scientists use tools such as DNA synthesis and genetic engineering to “program” cells to perform specific tasks, such as producing vaccines, developing sustainable fuels or detecting environmental toxins.

But how far has the field gone since Venter’s original synthetic bacterial cell?

As a biochemist who uses genomics in my teaching and research, I am interested in understanding what this shift in biology means and how far it has actually taken scientific innovation. Following Venter’s death on April 29, 2026, it is worth revisiting that moment and asking whether synthetic biology has delivered on its promise.

What is synthetic biology?

For much of the 20th century, biology focused on decoding life.

The discovery of DNA’s structure in 1953 revealed how genetic information is stored. Decades later, the Human Genome Project that Venter helped accelerate mapped the full set of human genes.

But Venter and others pushed the field further: If DNA could be read like code, could it also be written?

This idea underpins synthetic biology, which aims to design and construct biological systems rather than simply study them. Instead of modifying one gene at a time, researchers began exploring whether entire genomes could be built and inserted into cells.

Synthetic biology offers both tantalizing promises and terrifying risks.

In 2010, Venter’s team demonstrated that this was possible. They constructed a bacterial genome and used it to take control of a living cell. While the cell itself was not built entirely from scratch, their work showed that the instructions for life could be engineered.

In other words, synthetic biologists were moving from reading life to rewriting it entirely.

Big promises and bold expectations

Synthetic biology has already led to a range of promising outcomes across medicine, energy and environmental science.

Researchers have engineered microbes to produce lifesaving drugs such as artemisinin, an antimalarial compound, and to manufacture sustainable biofuels that could reduce reliance on fossil fuels. In addition, researchers are using synthetic biology to design organisms capable of detecting and breaking down environmental pollutants, offering new tools for bioremediation.

At the heart of these ideas was a powerful analogy: If biology could be treated like software, then designing organisms might one day resemble writing code.

This vision attracted significant investment and policy attention. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has highlighted synthetic biology’s potential to address challenges in multiple industries while also raising important ethical and safety considerations. For example, synthetic biology techniques could be used to develop biological weapons and could unintentionally harm ecosystems and human health.

Progress slower than expected

Despite this progress, synthetic biology has not fully realized its early ambitions. One major reason is the complexity of living systems.

Early approaches to synthetic biology treated cells as modular systems, where components could be predictably exchanged. In practice, biological systems are highly interconnected. Gene interactions are difficult to predict, and results observed in controlled laboratory conditions do not always scale to real-world environments.

This challenge has been particularly evident in areas such as biofuels, where translating laboratory successes into industrial-scale production has proved difficult.

There are also more fundamental limitations. Scientists still cannot construct a fully living organism from nonliving components alone. Even Venter’s synthetic cell depended on an existing biological system to function.

As a result, the goal of creating life entirely from scratch remains out of reach for now.

New questions and emerging risks

As technology has advanced, it has also raised new ethical and security concerns. The same tools used to design beneficial organisms could potentially be misused.

Synthetic biology is widely recognized as a dual-use field, where advances in gene editing, DNA synthesis and bioengineering may enable not only medical and environmental innovations but also the creation or modification of harmful organisms.

The increasing accessibility of these technologies further lowers barriers to misuse, making biosecurity threats more distributed and difficult to control. At the same time, governance frameworks often struggle to keep pace with rapid technological developments, leaving gaps in oversight and international coordination.

Microscopy image of a grey spherical blob with a rough surface of spherical protuberances — This synthetic ‘minimal cell’ has been stripped of all but its most essential bacterial genes – and can still evolve.
Tom Deerinck and Mark Ellisman of the National Center for Imaging and Microscopy Research at the University of California at San Diego

Beyond immediate risks, broader questions remain about how far humans should go in redesigning life and what unintended consequences such changes could have for ecosystems. Engineered organisms may introduce risks such as genetic contamination and ecosystem disruption, which would harm biodiversity and ecosystem services.

These concerns are likely to become more pressing as the technology behind synthetic biology continues to develop, particularly as emerging tools such as artificial intelligence accelerate the design of new biological systems.

Venter’s legacy

The implications of the idea that life could be engineered rather than just observed is still unfolding.

Synthetic biology has not yet delivered a world of fully programmable organisms solving global challenges. But it has changed expectations, both within science and beyond, about what might be possible in biological design.

In that sense, the impact of synthetic biology is already clear: It has altered not just how scientists study life but how society imagines its future.

Venter’s legacy includes the questions he made unavoidable: how far scientists should go in designing life, who gets to decide, and what responsibilities come with that power. The answers remain unsettled. But the trajectory seems to be that science is learning, cautiously and imperfectly, to author life.

André O. Hudson receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation

– ref. Synthetic biology promised to rewrite life – with the death of its pioneer, J. Craig Venter, how close are scientists? – https://theconversation.com/synthetic-biology-promised-to-rewrite-life-with-the-death-of-its-pioneer-j-craig-venter-how-close-are-scientists-281963

April 30, 2026

In Colombia and Brazil, presidential candidates offer old solutions to old problems

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Guilherme Casarões, Associate Professor of Brazilian Studies, Florida International University

On May 31st, Colombian voters will go to the polls with Abelardo de la Espriella – criminal lawyer, self-styled outsider, and self-described “Tiger” – securing his place in the runoff against left-wing Iván Cepeda. In Brazil, Senator Flávio Bolsonaro – the son of incarcerated former President Jair Bolsonaro – is also busy, touring Washington, Dallas, and El Salvador, burnishing a “Bolsonaro 2.0” brand ahead of October elections.

The two men have never appeared on the same stage, but they are running similar campaigns, reading from similar scripts, and looking toward the same set of foreign role models. In a familiar recipe, their platforms combine free-market economics, conservative values, and a tough approach to crime.

De la Espriella proposes reducing the size of the state by up to 40%, eliminating hundreds of thousands of public contracts and positions, and slashing taxes. He considers himself a major political admirer of Argentina’s President Javier Milei, someone who, in his eyes, has charted the solution to the hemisphere’s economic problems.

Flávio Bolsonaro has presented his pre-candidacy as a direct continuation of the legacy of his father, who was arrested last year for attempting a coup d’état following his defeat in the 2022 elections. Bolsonaro’s oldest son describes his project as the return to a market-oriented, Pro-Washington, and nationalistic platform.

Economy, security, and foreign policy

Although the language varies at times, the ideology that drives both campaigns does not. Both Bolsonaro’s son and De la Espriella embrace a combination of right-wing conservative security stances and the same neoliberal economic doctrine that was tried across Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s, showcasing a repacking of old views to try and solve old problems.

On security, both candidates have vowed to follow the steps of El Savador’s strongman president Nayib Bukele. Flávio Bolsonaro, after visiting El Salvador’s notorious CECOT mega-prison in person, called Bukele’s approach a “radical transformation” and demanded the construction of “many, many prisons” in Brazil to address a deficit he estimates at 500,000 beds.

De la Espriella is even more explicit: “Against the narcoterrorism that Petro has coddled, an iron fist like Bukele’s,” he has declared, promising to bomb guerrilla encampments and build high-security mega-prisons modeled on El Salvador’s CECOT. He also proposes a new prison corps staffed by military reservists and veterans, administered privately, removing the current penal institute which he describes as “a cancer for Colombia.”

On foreign policy, De la Espriella has declared that any relationship Colombia has with Venezuela must be conducted “through the United States”, essentially ignoring the Venezuelan Government. This is a remarkable formulation that would break tradition with previous Colombian foreign policy towards Caracas, which was marked by acting mostly in an independent fashion of its allies in the region. He wants to strengthen the military alliance with Washington and Tel Aviv, and has called on the Trump Administration to prosecute and extradite incumbent President Gustavo Petro over supposed drug charges.

Flávio Bolsonaro, meanwhile, appeared at CPAC in Dallas, supporting the alliance with President Trump. He openly positioned Brazil as a bulwark in Washington’s geopolitical strategy to reduce Chinese influence in the hemisphere and offered up his country’s strategic resources to this end. Trump’s own political adviser, Jason Miller, declared Flávio the “next president” of Brazil from the conference stage.

What is striking about all of this is not just the content of these proposals but their explicitly transnational character. As they aim for the Presidency, De la Espriella and Flávio Bolsonaro are aiming for membership in a global conservative movement, constructing their political identities by association with leaders like Trump, Bukele, and Milei.

How far can their promises go?

This transnational strategy, however, has already shown some limits. When Eduardo Bolsonaro lobbied Washington to impose tariffs and sanctions on Brazil’s government and economy, 57% of Brazilians disapproved of what he was doing to their country. Instead of strengthening the Bolsonaro brand, this episode handed left-wing president Lula Da Silva a nationalist narrative that the right had monopolized for years. All while presidents Lula and Trump would go on to partially reconcile not that long after.

“Bukelizing” security can also be problematic. Importing the Salvadoran model to much bigger countries, whose public security issues are complex and widespread, would be an invitation to the kind of arbitrary State power that Colombian and Brazilian democracies spent decades trying to contain. By tapping into Bukele’s youthful appeal and increasing popularity, Bolsonaro and De la Espriella vow to promote potentially authoritarian solutions under a veil of efficiency.

There is a real frustration at the root of these candidacies, and it would be a mistake to dismiss it. Colombia and Brazil are countries where insecurity is existential for millions of people, where inequality persists despite decades of formal progress, where institutional corruption has eroded confidence in the political class.

Even though De la Espriella and Flávio Bolsonaro are tapping into genuine concerns, the solutions they offer are not new responses to old problems. Economic shock therapy in largely unequal societies, militarized crackdowns in countries with a long history of institutional violence, and a lack of inherent agency in terms of foreign policy are just old responses to old problems. This time, retooled with new aesthetics and a new international support network.

Os autores não prestam consultoria, trabalham, possuem ações ou recebem financiamento de qualquer empresa ou organização que se beneficiaria deste artigo e não revelaram qualquer vínculo relevante além de seus cargos acadêmicos.

– ref. In Colombia and Brazil, presidential candidates offer old solutions to old problems – https://theconversation.com/in-colombia-and-brazil-presidential-candidates-offer-old-solutions-to-old-problems-281854

April 30, 2026

Gerrymandering is unpopular with Florida voters – my recent survey shows why DeSantis pushed it through anyway

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel A. Smith, Professor of Political Science, University of Florida

State Rep. Angie Nixon, D-Fla., speaks against mid-decade redistricting during a special session of the Florida Legislature on April 29, 2026. AP Photo/Mike Stewart

The Sunshine State has joined Texas, California and a handful of other states in the battle of mid-decade redistricting.

On April 29, 2026, in a near party-line vote, the Florida Legislature adopted new congressional maps drawn by a staffer of Gov. Ron DeSantis. The GOP-led effort could lead to four more of Florida’s 28 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives turning Republican. Florida redrew its maps with the same underlying population data just four years ago.

Mid-decade redistricting in Florida was all but inevitable once Donald Trump made partisan map-drawing a national priority. Florida’s Republican legislators had little incentive – or political cover – to resist.

I’m a political scientist, and my research focuses on voting and elections. I’ve served as an expert in redistricting cases in Florida, and I’ve been tracking Florida voters’ opinions on DeSantis’ 2026 redistricting efforts.

What Florida voters think about gerrymandering overall

University of Florida Ph.D. student Rolland Grady and I conducted a representative survey of more than 2,300 Florida registered voters drawn randomly from the publicly available Florida voter file.

Participants had one week, from April 6-13, 2026, to fill out our web-based survey linked to an email invitation. We did not offer any incentives to respondents providing us with their opinions.

The results show broad, principled opposition to partisan gerrymandering in Florida. Roughly two-thirds of Florida voters we contacted said they oppose redrawing district lines to advantage a political party.

What they think about their own party gerrymandering

But beyond gauging how Florida voters feel about gerrymandering in theory, we wanted to see how they responded to actual scenarios of mid-decade redistricting, and whether it mattered to them which party was leading the redistricting.

So we designed an experimental survey: Before respondents were asked how they felt about mid-decade redistricting, each participant was randomly shown one of five different statements.

The control version of this statement read, “The redrawing of congressional district boundaries typically occurs every 10 years, immediately following the U.S. Census.”

The other versions gave that control statement, and then added information about a particular state – California, Texas or Florida – that was redrawing its maps, and which party was endorsing that gerrymandering.

Finally, there was a version of the statement that included the control statement, told voters that Republican Ron DeSantis was endorsing the redistricting in Florida, and then added a third line of text: “As you might know, in 2010 citizens in Florida passed the Fair Districts Amendment with bipartisan support of more than 60% of the vote.”

According to our survey results, Florida Democrats are intensely opposed to gerrymandering for partisan purposes when it is framed as benefiting Republicans. This strong opposition may increase the focus of big donors on Florida, helping to drive fundraising for Democratic candidates. It may also mobilize some Democrats to come out to the polls in November. But when it comes to persuasion, most Democrats who plan to vote in the midterm elections are already highly engaged and unlikely to support GOP candidates anyway.

Florida Republicans also oppose mid-decade redistricting in the abstract. Not surprisingly, support for drawing lines to help the GOP increases when framed as something DeSantis is pursuing, but only by 15 percentage points.

This suggests some latent, principled discomfort among GOP voters. On the other hand, strong messaging from Republican leaders, particularly Trump, in the run-up to the election may override concerns about fairness. Partisanship and leader-motivated behavior will drive many Republican voters to rationalize the GOP’s effort to increase their congressional margins by four seats.

Where independent voters fall

Finally, our poll finds that Florida independent voters have strong and consistently principled opposition to partisan gerrymandering; their support rarely exceeds 15% under any condition. But in Florida, independent voters, who are often registered with no party affiliation, are less politically organized or active than registered Republicans and Democrats. And it’s likely that these voters redrawn into a new congressional district will be even less knowledgeable about who represents them when it’s time to pick candidates.

It is possible that Democrats will be able to use GOP gerrymandering in November to get independent voters to the polls and oppose Republican candidates. But opposition to gaming the system is just one of many factors that will shape how independents vote. Other issues, such as concerns over the rising cost of living, immigration, foreign policy and presidential approval, usually play a much greater role in determining candidate choice in midterm elections.

The Florida GOP’s mid-decade redistricting gambit reveals a troubling truth about American democracy: Voters oppose partisan gerrymandering in principle but tolerate it in practice when their side benefits.

So even though a majority of Florida voters disapprove of the GOP’s effort to tilt the state’s map even further toward electing Republicans, I’m not expecting widespread punishment of Republican incumbents due to these redistricting efforts.

DeSantis is betting that Trump’s influence will paper over GOP voters’ discomfort, that Democrats will stay demoralized, and that independents will stay home in November.

How GOP gerrymandering could backfire

But just because the GOP’s gerrymandering won’t sway voters away from their party doesn’t mean it won’t end up hurting them at the polls.

DeSantis’ map crams Democrats into just four of 28 districts – a high-stakes gamble that requires lightning to strike twice. To succeed for the GOP, the map requires both 2024’s Democratic and independent voter apathy and 2022’s swing to the right by independents.

But midterms tend to bring lower turnout, and today’s economic squeeze plus Trump’s dismal approval ratings make another 2022-style GOP surge highly unlikely.

The worst case for the GOP would be a 2018-style blue wave. It would destroy DeSantis’ gerrymander and could potentially flip three South Florida GOP seats and two in Central Florida to Democrats. Aggressive redistricting may meet unintended consequences come November.

See you in court

Florida Democrats and other groups will likely sue under the state constitution’s Fair Districts amendments, which were adopted in 2010 by Florida voters of all political stripes. These amendments to the Florida Constitution expressly prohibit redrawing districts with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.

But DeSantis and his lawyers are setting the stage to defend the mid-decade partisan gerrymander. They fully expect that the Florida Supreme Court will strike down the Fair Districts amendments’ ban on partisan redistricting. The odds are stacked against the citizens of Florida who support fair districts.

In my view, the real losers here are the Florida voters, particularly those who approved the state’s Fair Districts amendments in 2010, which were a bipartisan triumph.

Daniel A. Smith is an Advisory Board Member of Common Cause Florida and President of ElectionSmith.

– ref. Gerrymandering is unpopular with Florida voters – my recent survey shows why DeSantis pushed it through anyway – https://theconversation.com/gerrymandering-is-unpopular-with-florida-voters-my-recent-survey-shows-why-desantis-pushed-it-through-anyway-281792

April 30, 2026

‘Executive power is subject to checks and balances’: why King Charles cited Magna Carta in the US Congress

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicholas Vincent, Professor of Medieval History, University of East Anglia

In his speech to Congress during a trip to the US to mark the country’s 250th anniversary, King Charles made repeated references to Magna Carta, the medieval English charter that laid the foundations for the modern rule of law. Dating back to 1215, Magna Carta also established for the first time that the monarch was not above the law. Charles used his speech to reference the common Anglo-American tradition of law, and of how the charter has been cited in more than 160 US judgments of the US Supreme Court.

It was notable that the king chose to cite this ancient charter, which stands as a symbol of protecting freedom and guarding against tyranny, at such a tricky moment for US-UK relations. Perhaps not surprisingly in the context of an erratic and controversial US president, the remarks from the king were well received by parts of the audience.

In fact, Charles enjoyed a standing ovation when he stated that Magna Carta was the very “foundation of the principal that executive power is subject to checks and balances”. In other words, it serves as the basis for the rule of law.

Checks, balances and applause for the king.

Charles is only the third ruling British monarch to visit the US. But during all three visits, Magna Carta has been trumpeted in support of a supposedly very special alliance. King George VI, Charles’ grandfather, began this in 1939. Back then, he visited the New York World Fair where Lincoln Cathedral’s original Magna Carta of 1215 was on display as the centrepiece of the British pavilion.

War broke out that same year, and so Lincoln’s Magna Carta became stranded in the US. It was guarded in the gold depository at Fort Knox, Kentucky, until it could be returned to England in 1946.

At a low point in British fortunes following both the fall of France and the Blitz, in the summer of 1941, prime minister Winston Churchill even considered gifting it to the American people. Had he done so, this would have served as a reminder of America’s responsibilities to war-torn Europe.

In 1976, when Charles’ mother, Queen Elizabeth II, visited Washington for the bicentenary of American independence, there was again talk – not least from the British prime minister Harold Wilson – of gifting a Magna Carta to the US.

In the end, this was resolved by the presentation of a replica crafted in gold and enamel (which is now somewhat sheepishly displayed in the crypt of the US Capitol).

Legacy in US statute

In all of this, Magna Carta for many Americans remains an icon of the rule of law, or what in the US is called “due process”. Where only four of the charter’s original 60 clauses are still operative under English law, the entire text was incorporated in the statute books of no less than 17 US states, beginning with South Carolina in 1836 and ending with North Dakota in 1943.

Images of England’s King John presenting Magna Carta to his barons are carved or painted in many state capitols or court houses, including on the vast bronze doors of the Supreme Court building in Washington.

The US National Archives (thanks to a long-term loan), and Harvard Law School both possess originals of the English charter. That of the National Archives is via a reissue of 1297, sold to the presidential candidate Ross Perot in 1984, while Harvard’s is from a 1300 reissue, purchased in 1946 as a mere “copy” for US$27.50 (around £7 at the time). This was reauthenticated in 2025 as a lost (and therefore extremely valuable) original.

united states 5 cent postage stamp commemorating the 750th anniversary of magna carta in 1965 — The US issued a commemorative postage stamp in 1965 to mark the 750th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta.
SUDARSHAN BHATLA/Shutterstock

And in the UK, an acre of Runnymede in England, where Magna Carta was sealed, was granted to the American people in perpetuity in 1965. This was done both in honour of a shared respect for the principle of liberty, and as a memorial to President John F. Kennedy, assassinated in 1963.

Of course, there are aspects of this story that belong more to the realm of myth than reality. For instance, of Magna Carta’s many appearances in US supreme court judgments, a surprising number cite it not as a touchstone of liberty or the rights of man, but in defence of commercial or corporate privilege.

Even so, the standing ovation for King Charles and his remarks about checks and balances suggest that Magna Carta remains a potent symbol. In what was widely received as a pitch-perfect speech, the king reminded the land of the free that the price of US (or indeed UK) freedom is not only eternal vigilance, but a healthy respect for the shared Anglo-American past.

Nicholas Vincent 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. ‘Executive power is subject to checks and balances’: why King Charles cited Magna Carta in the US Congress – https://theconversation.com/executive-power-is-subject-to-checks-and-balances-why-king-charles-cited-magna-carta-in-the-us-congress-281887

April 30, 2026

Trump uses assassination attempt to justify his assault on first amendment rights to free speech

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Eliza Bechtold, Programmes Manager and Research Fellow, the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford

The Trump administration has called on TV network ABC to “take a stand” after a joke from its late night comedy host Jimmy Kimmel offended the US president and first lady.

Two days before the White House Correpondents’ dinner on April 25, Kimmel broadcast what he said was a “roast” of the Trump administration. Roasts are typically quite savage comedic attacks which have become a traditional part of the dinner.

Trump, who was famously the target of jokes from former president, Barack Obama, at a dinner in 2011, had never attended the dinner while in office. This year he opted to attend, but the comedian’s spot was taken by what was described as a “mentalist”.

So Kimmel said he decided to supply the roast on his show as an “all-American” version of the Correspondents’ Dinner. In what he said was a joke about the 24-year age difference between the couple, he described Melania Trump as “having a glow like an expectant widow”. But after a would-be assassin tried to launch a murderous attack two days later at the dinner, the Trumps have demanded his sacking.

“Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behaviour at the expense of our community,” Melania Trump wrote in a post on X.

But it appears that ABC, a subsidiary of Disney, is instead standing by Kimmel, who has not been taken off air, in contrast to an episode in September 2025 when Kimmel was suspended after comments he made following the death of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk, a close friend of the Trumps. After a public outcry, ABC relented and restored Kimmel’s show.

In response, Brendan Carr, the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has brought forward a review of ABC’s station licences, which were previously not scheduled until 2028 or later. Carr’s actions follow a press conference at the White House on April 26 at which press secretary Karoline Leavitt said coverage critical of Trump, including from his Democrat opponents, was responsible for the rise in political violence in the US by creating what she called a “leftwing cult of hatred”.

These examples highlight the politicisation of “free speech” by the Trump administration as a cudgel to silence disfavoured viewpoints under the guise protecting the public from harm.

First amendment protection for free speech

But these political debates are becoming increasingly distanced from the first amendment. That is, the interpretation of the first amendment by the Supreme Court and the protections it provides to individuals and entities, including media outlets and broadcast companies, from government interference. The wider this gulf becomes, the greater the space between the principles underlying the expansive protections afforded to speech in the US and the public’s understanding of the democratic principles that underpin these protections.

Jimmy Kimmel defends his joke about the Trumps.

This is more important than ever in the Trump era. Actions taken by the administration to target broadcast networks and individuals for political speech are precisely what the first amendment protects against. It was designed, among other things, to protect individuals, entities and the press from government interference by creating an open marketplace in which ideas compete freely.

This is particularly true for dissenting political speech, which is the core of the first amendment. This explains why government interference with speech based on “the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker” – known as “viewpoint discrimination” – is expressly prohibited.

Additionally, whether and to what extent speech is offensive is irrelevant to the protection it enjoys. When it comes to the value of public debate, the first amendment is not neutral. Indeed, as a Supreme Court judgment, Baumgartner v. United States (1944) found: “One of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures.” Moreover a more recent judgment, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988), found that “robust political debate” is expressly encouraged, given that such debate “is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office”.

Importantly, the Supreme Court found in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) that such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate and that public figures as well as public officials will be subjected to “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks”.

The motive of the speaker is also irrelevant, as the Supreme Court held in Hustler v Falwell that while a “bad motive” may be deemed controlling for tort liability and in other areas of the law, “the first amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures”.

Stakes couldn’t be higher

By expressly linking Democrat criticisms of the president, and pointed critiques (however off-colour) from Kimmel and his fellow political satirists to an upsurge in political violence, the Trump administration is trying to silence criticism of its actions. But it’s also clear that this behaviour is precisely what the first amendment prohibits.

Ironically, the media often portrays these episodes as “feuds” between Trump and his critics.

But when viewed through the lens of the first amendment and its core values in this context, the stakes are much higher. These episodes constitute an effort to wrest control of public discourse by interfering in the marketplace of ideas in order silence those critical of the government.

And history tells us that a government that can silence its critics often does so in pursuit of unchecked power. Viewed through this lens, perhaps the greatest threat to American democracy is the government itself.

Eliza Bechtold 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. Trump uses assassination attempt to justify his assault on first amendment rights to free speech – https://theconversation.com/trump-uses-assassination-attempt-to-justify-his-assault-on-first-amendment-rights-to-free-speech-281757

April 30, 2026

Why do polar bears approach human infrastructure? The answer is more complex than we thought

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Douglas Clark, Associate Professor in Human Dimensions of Environment & Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan

Polar bears are intensely curious animals. That curiosity often brings them into contact with people and can put both species at risk from one another.

As the Arctic climate warms, some polar bears are spending more time on shore, away from the sea ice habitats they rely on to hunt seals. As the bears are under nutritional stress due to ice loss, some wonder if they’re being forced to take more risks around people as they seek food, increasing interactions and conflicts between polar bears and people. But until now, there’re been little research into this relationship.

Between 2011 and 2021, research colleagues and I placed trail cameras at three camps in Wapusk National Park in Manitoba and, later, at the nearby Churchill Northern Studies Centre (CNSC) to see how often polar bears visited these sites on the west coast of Hudson Bay.

The project began at the invitation of Parks Canada when their newly constructed field camps at Broad River and Owl River turned out to receive more bear visits than they expected. Those camps had been located away from the coast to reduce the likelihood of polar bear encounters, so answering this immediate question was a priority.

We investigated whether human activity, the length of the ice-free season — or both — were influencing polar bear visits. In approximately 80 per cent of the bear visits, our photos showed enough of the animal that we could rate their body condition using an established fatness index.

We observed 580 bear visits with our cameras, mostly between July and November, when bears are well-known to be abundant in the area. What we found was that human presence at the camps and the CNSC didn’t have any effect on the number of bear visits. The length of the ice-free season each year, however, had a notable effect.

It’s all about ice

The ice-free season can be longer if sea ice breaks up earlier in spring than normal, forms later in fall than normal, or both. During our study period, there was no long-term trend in the ice-free season’s length, but it did vary a lot year to year. We found that the longer western Hudson Bay remained ice-free in a year, the more frequently bears visited our study sites.

Poor body condition is considered an indicator of nutritional stress, and a healthy body condition to survive on-shore fasting is critical for polar bear survival.

But rather than getting visits from hungrier bears that were detectably thinner — which is what we had expected — we found that the more time bears were off the ice, the more likely all bears were to approach our study sites, regardless of their nutritional health.

This result was unexpected since other research shows underweight polar bears are more likely to attack people, which has been taken to mean that those particular bears would take more chances to find food and so be more likely to approach or prey on people.

Instead, what we’re seeing is that body condition may play a different role. Rather than influencing the bears to seek human interactions, body condition might instead influence whether interactions between people and polar bears escalate.

In other words, if polar bears are around people to begin with, a skinny bear might be more likely to aggressively try to obtain human food sources, or even prey on people, than a bear under less nutritional stress.

We were also surprised not to see many lone sub-adult bears in our photos. Those other studies have also shown that they’re usually the ones most likely to come into conflict with people.

These observations, though, are consistent with other research on this sub-population. As the ice-free season has on average lengthened in western Hudson Bay, the production and survival of juvenile bears has dropped. Our unexpected results, then, are probably due to there simply not being many young bears in the population during our study.

Scientific and Indigenous observations

Our findings suggest that sea ice loss probably doesn’t lead to more interactions with people just because polar bears are thinner or hungrier, so we need to better understand what can cause interactions to worsen into attacks.

What does this mean for current approaches to reducing the risk of polar bear-human conflicts? Bringing it back to the Parks Canada’s original question, it appears that the likelihood of bear visits to their camps isn’t affected by anything under human control, but the outcomes of any bear visits that do take place certainly are.

What we found may also help explain why scientific explanations and Indigenous and local observations of polar bear-human interactions have differed. Scientific literature has long maintained that poor body condition drives polar bears into northern communities.

However, documented observations from those communities themselves indicate bears who come into communities are not necessarily in poorer condition than would be expected.

Our findings align more closely with Indigenous observations, highlighting how untested assumptions can, through repetition in scientific literature, solidify into accepted wisdom.

Douglas Clark receives funding from ArcticNet, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Genome Prairie/Genome Canada, the Belmont Forum, the Churchill Northern Studies Centre and the University of Saskatchewan.

– ref. Why do polar bears approach human infrastructure? The answer is more complex than we thought – https://theconversation.com/why-do-polar-bears-approach-human-infrastructure-the-answer-is-more-complex-than-we-thought-279721

April 30, 2026

Nouvelle tentative d’assassinat présumée contre Trump : il est peu probable que cela freine sa baisse de popularité

Source: The Conversation – in French – By James K. Rowe, Associate Professor of Political Ecology, University of Victoria

Le président américain semble avoir échappé de justesse à une nouvelle tentative d’assassinat.

La dernière tentative d’assassinat présumée lors du gala des correspondants de la Maison-Blanche n’aurait pas pu survenir à un meilleur moment, compte tenu de la popularité en baisse du président. Cependant, en raison du scepticisme largement répandu et des efforts déployés par l’équipe de Trump pour promouvoir la construction d’une salle de bal à la Maison-Blanche dès le lendemain de la fusillade, il est loin d’être certain que cet incident lui profitera.

Les tentatives d’assassinat contribuent souvent à rehausser la popularité des élus. En 1981, un homme a tiré sur Ronald Reagan devant l’hôtel Hilton de Washington, le même où s’est produite la récente tentative visant Trump. La cote de popularité de Reagan a grimpé en flèche après l’attaque.

Pourquoi la violence politique a-t-elle un effet positif sur la popularité ?

La réponse évidente est que le fait d’être victime de violence peut humaniser une personne, atténuant ainsi les critiques, tant de la part de ses partisans que de ses détracteurs.

Mais ce n’est pas la seule raison. Quand on voit un politicien éviter des balles ou y survivre, on peut le percevoir comme un être surhumain, avoir l’impression qu’il a été « touché » par Dieu ou qu’il détient un pouvoir de vie et de mort.

Trump, ce superhéros

Trump a créé une image emblématique lorsqu’il a levé le poing en signe de défi, le visage ensanglanté, à Butler, en Pennsylvanie, quelques mois avant l’élection présidentielle de 2024. Cela a renforcé sa campagne et forgé un mythe d’invincibilité.

C’est le même homme qui affirmait en 2016 qu’il pourrait « tirer sur quelqu’un en pleine 5^e Avenue et ne perdre aucun électeur ». Malgré deux procédures de destitution, des verdicts de culpabilité pour 34 chefs d’accusation au criminel, des aveux d’agression sexuelle captés par un micro ouvert et de multiples accusations d’agression, Trump a été réélu en 2024. Là où d’autres auraient pu s’effondrer, Trump a poursuivi son ascension.

Si Trump a affirmé qu’il pourrait tirer sur des gens en plein centre de Manhattan et s’en sortir politiquement, la fusillade de Butler a donné l’impression qu’il pourrait recevoir des balles sans y laisser sa vie, qu’il n’a pas les mêmes vulnérabilités que le commun des mortels et qu’il est en quelque sorte surhumain. Trump a lui-même invoqué l’intervention divine pour expliquer comment il avait pu survivre à de multiples tentatives d’assassinat.

La gestion de la peur

La théorie de la gestion de la peur (TMT, pour terror management theory) est un courant de la psychologie qui étudie l’influence de notre rapport à la vie et à la mort sur les résultats politiques.

Selon cette théorie, nous gérons nos angoisses face à la mort par la quête d’un « héroïsme terrestre », c’est-à-dire en cherchant de l’estime d’une manière qui soit conforme à la vision du monde que nous avons choisie. De plus en plus de données expérimentales viennent étayer cette hypothèse.

Donald Trump est la preuve vivante de cette théorie.

Il est connu pour sa germophobie et son obsession pour les apparences de vitalité. Il est obsédé par ses cheveux, car il considère la calvitie comme un signe de faiblesse et d’échec. Avec sa quête effrénée d’argent — la mesure de la valeur dans les économies capitalistes — et sa manie d’apposer son nom sur tout, des immeubles à la vodka en passant par des bibles, il a cherché à se forger une image héroïque. Avant même qu’il ne se présente à la présidence, on pouvait déjà acheter une figurine à son effigie.

Selon l’anthropologue américain Ernest Becker, dont le livre The Denial of Death (Le déni de la mort), lauréat du prix Pulitzer, a posé les bases intellectuelles de la TMT :

Le monde réel… dit à l’être humain qu’il n’est qu’un petit animal tremblant, voué à la décomposition et à la mort. L’illusion transforme tout cela : elle lui donne l’impression d’être important, indispensable à l’univers, et en quelque sorte immortel.

Avec son obsession pour l’or, sa grandiloquence et ses cheveux dorés malgré son âge, Trump est un maître de l’illusion qui sait créer une image de superhéros pour sa base MAGA.

L’héroïsme peut aussi se vivre par procuration. C’est ce que beaucoup d’entre nous font avec des équipes sportives, des célébrités et des hommes politiques, en vivant leurs victoires et leurs défaites comme si c’étaient les nôtres.

Le bon moment ?

Le triomphe de Trump sur la mort à Butler, il y a deux ans — un incident que même certains partisans du mouvement MAGA remettent en doute aujourd’hui —, l’a aidé à franchir la ligne d’arrivée. Selon sa cheffe de cabinet, Susie Wiles, Butler aurait joué un « rôle important » dans la victoire républicaine de 2024.

Que penser alors de la tentative d’assassinat présumée dont il vient d’être victime ? Cela rehaussera-t-il sa cote de popularité, plus basse que jamais ?

D’un point de vue bassement politique, les précédents historiques montrent que cette tentative d’assassinat n’aurait pas pu survenir à un meilleur moment. Discrédité par ses liens avec le pédophile Jeffrey Epstein et engagé dans une guerre impopulaire contre l’Iran qui coûte des milliards de dollars et fait grimper le prix de l’essence, Trump avait besoin d’une bouée de sauvetage.

Le moment est si opportun que des théories du complot ont immédiatement commencé à circuler, selon lesquelles l’attaque aurait été orchestrée de l’intérieur dans le but de remonter la cote de popularité en chute libre du président.

Mort politique évitée ?

Il est toutefois peu probable que cet incident récent lui permette d’échapper à une mort politique. Après les échecs politiques du département de l’Efficacité gouvernementale (DOGE), l’affaire Epstein et une guerre risquée à l’issue incertaine, Trump est politiquement affaibli.

Même des membres influents de sa propre base, comme Tucker Carlson, ancien commentateur de Fox News, ne le glorifient plus et se demandent s’il ne serait pas l’antéchrist.

Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.

Les images de la récente fusillade témoignent davantage de faiblesse que de vitalité. Les agents des services secrets ont eu du mal à sortir Trump de son siège, probablement en raison de ses problèmes de mobilité (même si le président affirme que sa lenteur était due au fait qu’il supervisait courageusement les opérations).

En outre, au lieu de lever le poing en signe de triomphe, comme à Butler, Trump est tombé alors qu’on l’emmenait précipitamment hors de scène (il prétend qu’on lui a dit de se baisser, mais sa sortie semble ardue).

Un reportage sur la tentative d’assassinat présumée à Washington, D.C. (CNN).

Alors que son équipe présente cette dernière fusillade comme une preuve supplémentaire de sa super-humanité, Trump semble chaque jour plus mortel, tant sur le plan politique que physique.

Trump a connu son heure de gloire, mais, tel Icare, son orgueil et son excès de zèle finissent par faire fondre ses ailes. Si l’illusion peut masquer l’inévitable pendant un certain temps, ce qui monte finit toujours par redescendre.

James K. Rowe ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Nouvelle tentative d’assassinat présumée contre Trump : il est peu probable que cela freine sa baisse de popularité – https://theconversation.com/nouvelle-tentative-dassassinat-presumee-contre-trump-il-est-peu-probable-que-cela-freine-sa-baisse-de-popularite-281713

April 30, 2026

Reforms to South Africa’s technical colleges keep failing students and employers: why?

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Stephanie Allais, Faculty member, Centre for Researching Education and Labour, University of the Witwatersrand

South Africa’s 50 public technical and vocational education and training (TVET) colleges are, in the main, struggling institutions.

In many, throughput rates – how many students qualify in the expected time – are low. Some lecturers are under-qualified and under-resourced. Relationships with employers, which are crucial for the type of training that these colleges offer, are uneven.

Colleges are hard pressed to provide training to young people with weak schooling behind them and no clear path to employment ahead. The youth unemployment rate is almost 44%.

The response to problems in the sector has been reform: rename the colleges, restructure them, give them new governance models, new qualification types, new funding arrangements. Over 30 years of democracy, South Africa has done all of these things, repeatedly. It has not worked.

And now there’s another round of changes being rolled out. There is little clearly documented explanation of what the new system is and how it will work in practice. But colleges have been instructed that most current qualification offerings will be phased out and replaced by new “occupational” qualifications.

In 2024 I wrote a paper tracing the history of the technical and vocational training sector, drawing on published literature, my research on skills development and my own involvement in South Africa’s education and training policy processes. The paper sets out why the sector is not working and what it needs to succeed.

In my view, based on the history of the sector, there is a serious risk that the latest reforms will make things worse.

Thirty years of the same mistake

South Africa’s policy vision and funding model for TVET colleges has, like that of many other countries, been to base funding on student enrolment for programmes that are linked to employer demand. It assumes colleges will respond to what employers want, and channel young people into jobs.

It has a long and largely unsuccessful track record, with problems in many countries – most extensively documented in Australia and the UK, the originators of the broad policy model.

The problem is structural. Funding institutions only through enrolments in specific programmes provides no institutional stability. It creates no incentive to invest in equipment, lecturers, or long-term relationships with employers. It treats colleges as if they were competing as private training providers.

When the programmes that attract funded enrolments change – as they do, repeatedly – colleges are left with stranded staff, obsolete equipment, and no financial buffer. And when new funding is made available, for new programmes, they don’t have lecturers who can teach them.

Private institutions tend not to offer manufacturing-related programmes – those are expensive. They focus on business-related programmes, which are cheaper.

Consider the National Technical Education Diploma (Nated) qualifications, the government-funded programmes that colleges have provided for decades. First, they were to be phased out. Then, when the National Development Plan created TVET enrolment targets, colleges were told to expand them. Colleges have built up staffing around them and enrolled students in them.

Now, the Department of Higher Education and Training has instructed colleges to phase them out. What replaces them are “occupational qualifications”.

The occupational qualifications problem

The department defines an occupation as

a set of jobs whose main tasks and duties are characterised by a high degree of similarity (skill specialisation).

The theory behind occupational qualifications is sound: link qualifications to specific occupations, make workplace experience part of the qualification, and graduates will have credentials that employers recognise and value.

The framework has thousands of occupations.

The problem – and here is where our new research (not yet published online) is indicating an uncomfortable finding – is that many of the “occupations” to which these new qualifications are linked do not really exist in workplaces and labour markets. And there is little publicly available information about them.

Some “occupations” have special skills that need special training, and others are really just jobs.

For example, in our research (not yet online) across 53 food and beverage manufacturing plants, we found that there are artisan trades like millwrighting, fitting and turning, and electrical work which fit the idea of an occupation. But machine operators don’t fit that description. Yet machine operators are among the new qualifications to be offered. The employers we visited don’t need those qualifications. They would rather hire someone they can train themselves, to use the equipment in their plant.

Training in a “knowledge module” like “personal mastery and interpersonal relationships” is not specific to the “occupation” of operating a machine.

You cannot create an occupation by developing a qualification for it. It works the other way: the occupation must exist before you create a qualification for it.

This is not an abstract concern. Colleges are now being instructed to gain accreditation to offer these qualifications, to hire staff to teach them, to find workplace placements for students doing them – all on the assumption that there is a real occupational destination at the end.

For artisans, this assumption holds: there are real occupations that translate to opportunities in the workplace. But for the majority of new occupational qualifications being developed, far more analysis is needed.

What institutions actually need

Colleges cannot become strong institutions through enrolment-driven funding alone, any more than a school can become strong by being paid per pupil with no base funding for teachers or classrooms. And calling qualifications “occupational” does not mean that they will lead to work where there is no meaningful occupation in labour markets or workplaces.

Institutions need a stable core – employed lecturers, maintained equipment, administrative capacity – that allows them to function as institutions rather than as collections of projects cobbled together from different funding streams.

Some of them may be better off offering second-chance matric (secondary school leaving certificate) programmes instead of narrowly focused programmes where there are few real opportunities for employment in the surrounding areas, and no way colleges can find work placements for their learners.

Pockets of genuine excellence exist in the current system: colleges with good employer relationships and real employment outcomes for graduates. What they have in common is principled management, experienced staff, and enough stability to build relationships over time. The system should be trying to replicate those conditions.

In my view, what needs to happen is this:

colleges should be funded with a core institutional grant, and enabled to provide a mix of training that reflects their local economic contexts
occupational qualifications should be rolled out only where employers need them.

Otherwise the latest reforms risk repeating the errors of the past 30 years. Colleges and young people deserve better than that.

Stephanie Allais receives funding from the South African National Research Foundation. I have also recently worked on research funded by the Food and Beverage Manufacturing SETA.

– ref. Reforms to South Africa’s technical colleges keep failing students and employers: why? – https://theconversation.com/reforms-to-south-africas-technical-colleges-keep-failing-students-and-employers-why-278711

April 30, 2026

Working from home in Nigeria: study finds women don’t have much choice

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Ikechukwu (Ike) Nwaka, Assistant Lecturer, Business Economics, University of Alberta

Nigerian women of working age are mostly (90%) self-employed. By comparison, self-employment accounts for less than 16% of employment in high-income countries such as the United States, Germany and the United Kingdom. It is far lower in middle-income countries like South Africa and Turkey too.

Official statistics show that self-employment in Nigeria is concentrated in the northern regions. And there’s a gender difference: women make up the majority of those working for themselves (Figure 1).

What these numbers do not explain is why women are far more likely than men to operate businesses from their homes, or whether those businesses generate meaningful economic returns.

As economists working on labour, gender, energy and development, we addressed these questions in a recent paper.

Using nationally representative household data from 2010 to 2019, the study examines why Nigerian women run enterprises from their homes. These kinds of operations include selling goods from a front room, preparing food at home, or offering haircuts, beauty services, laundry and dry cleaning, and shoe repair. They also make textiles, crafts, garments, shoes and cosmetics at home rather than in shops, kiosks or workshops.

The findings challenge the idea that home-based self-employment is mainly about personal preference or flexibility.

Childcare responsibilities, housing access, electricity and cultural norms strongly shape women’s work location. These insights reveal that supporting women in business must go beyond training or microfinance, and remove structural barriers.

Childcare limits women’s workplaces

We first identified factors associated with operating home-based businesses, using data (2010-2019) from national surveys that follow the same households over time.

We then examined how individual, household and contextual factors shape the likelihood of operating a business from home. We found that childcare was the strongest factor influencing women’s choice of work location.

The presence of young children doesn’t much affect where men work. For women, however, having young children makes it more likely they will run a business from home.

In Nigeria, women shoulder most of the unpaid domestic labour, including childcare, cooking and cleaning. Home-based businesses allow women to earn income while doing that labour.

For many women, home-based work may not be the most attractive option. Rather, the patterns we saw in the data suggest that it’s a way to reconcile income-earning with unpaid domestic responsibilities. Other research into women’s experiences has also shown that working from home may be a necessity rather than a choice.

Why home ownership doesn’t benefit women equally

Homeowners who operate home-based enterprises are better positioned to use property as collateral, access credit, expand workspace, or invest in equipment. They are able to turn housing into productive capital.

However, these advantages are not equally accessible to women.

Only 8.2% of women aged 20-49 are sole owners of land, compared with 34.2% of men, according to World Bank research into gender disparities in property ownership in sub-Saharan Africa.

The Nigerian constitution grants women equal rights to own, inherit and manage property. But many face legal, financial and social barriers that limit their actual control over assets.

Even in owner-occupied households, customary and patriarchal practices can mean that ownership doesn’t translate into decision-making power. Consequently, the same asset generates different economic returns for men and women. It confines women to lower-return home-based activities.

We found that 67% of female homeowners operate home-based enterprises compared with 33% of male owners. Most men who own homes work away from home.

Geography and social norms matter

We found that home-based enterprises are concentrated in poorer regions where returns are low, particularly in northern Nigeria, as shown in figure 2.

Even after accounting for income and education, women in northern Nigeria are far more likely to run businesses from home than women in the south. Cultural and religious norms that restrict women’s mobility and public participation probably play a central role.

This complicates global policy narratives that frame home-based work as inherently empowering. In Nigeria, it often reflects the need to juggle paid work with household obligations under restrictive conditions. These businesses tend to cluster in low-entry sectors, offer limited skill development, and have little growth potential.

Education helps, but only up to a point

Education and household income do expand women’s options, but their effects are limited. Our study shows that better-educated women are less likely than equally educated men to remain in home-based businesses when alternatives are available.

As household income rises, women are also less likely to operate enterprises from home. Importantly, observable characteristics do not explain the full gender gap. The study finds that less than half of the difference in home-based self-employment can be attributed to education, household size, marital status and housing. The rest likely reflects deeper structural forces that shape outcomes differently for men and women. These are forces like social norms, unequal access to finance, gendered returns to assets, and expectations around unpaid care work.

What this means for policy

Promoting home-based self-employment as a route to women’s economic empowerment can be misleading. When women are pushed into home-based enterprises because childcare is expensive, institutions and property rights are weak, or finance is inaccessible, entrepreneurship becomes a response to constraint, not opportunity.

Policies that reduce childcare costs, strengthen women’s property and inheritance rights, and improve access to credit are likely to do more to expand women’s choices than entrepreneurship programmes alone.

Digital infrastructure can help some home-based businesses reach wider markets, but only if deeper barriers are addressed. And because constraints vary across regions, one-size-fits-all solutions are unlikely to work.

More than flexibility

Home-based self-employment in Nigeria reflects deeply gendered expectations about work and care. Many women work from home not to assert independence, but because they have limited options.

Recognising this distinction matters. Celebrating women’s “flexibility” without addressing the constraints behind it risks turning resilience into a permanent requirement. A more equal future is one in which women can choose where and how they work, rather than adjusting their livelihoods around structural barriers.

Ikechukwu (Ike) Nwaka is affiliated with REACH Edmonton Council for Safe Communities as a Board Member

George Nwokike Ike 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. Working from home in Nigeria: study finds women don’t have much choice – https://theconversation.com/working-from-home-in-nigeria-study-finds-women-dont-have-much-choice-274792

April 30, 2026

How to talk to children when terrorist attacks and violence dominate the news

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Trudy Meehan, Lecturer, Centre for Positive Psychology and Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

When a man stabbed Jewish people in Golders Green, London, in what police declared a terrorist incident, the story spread fast – through news alerts, social media and the whispered conversations of anxious adults. When this happens, children notice.

Whether they catch a fragment of a TV bulletin, overhear a parent on the phone, or simply sense that something has shifted in the atmosphere at home, the news has a way of reaching them before they are ready. The question isn’t really whether to talk to children about violence and fear; it’s how.

First, it’s important to know that children have the resilience and capacity to process difficult topics, but bear in mind that this needs to happen in a supportive environment.

Start with safety. Ensure your child feels relaxed and secure. Safety comes from routines, keeping daily rhythms and practising rituals that remind everyone you are together and safe – for example, a nighttime story or song, a special time on the couch after dinner.

Your capacity to deal with issues like violence and fear is the most important factor in contributing to your child feeling safe during these conversations. If you feel overwhelmed or anxious, wait until you feel calmer and more grounded, or have someone to support you with the conversation.

Some families – particularly those who face racism or other forms of discrimination – will already be familiar with these conversations. But if this is new to you, the main thing to do is to be honest and clear. Be direct and specific. Avoid metaphors and euphemisms and vague ideas like “bad people”.

Adjust your language to the child’s age, but don’t overthink it. Simply pause often, ask questions, and watch their face for confusion.

Children don’t stay afraid for long. They move in and out of difficult feelings quickly, which is why short, repeated conversations work better than one big, serious talk.

Come back to them to check understanding and listen for misunderstandings. Ask them if they have any questions. And don’t be surprised if the child looks particularly bored or disinterested. Children prefer delight and joy and play rather than serious adult conversations. It doesn’t mean they are not listening or appreciating the explanation, it just means their priorities are elsewhere – and that’s a good thing.

Keeping children grounded amid fear

Limit media exposure and try to avoid talking about scary events around them – they are always listening and there’s huge room for misunderstanding when they hear rather than take part in conversations.

Research shows that if children are exposed to media and talk about fearful events, that it’s important what they hear is mediated through a supportive adult who can explain the content appropriately. They can pick up on the signs of fear and anxiety from adults, particularly in times of uncertainty, even if they can’t fully understand the words in the conversation.

Follow your child’s lead. Your job is to open the door. They decide whether to walk through it and when to leave. Don’t mistake silence for shutdown. Children often process fear through movement, play, singing, dancing, making and even breaking things.

It’s OK to say “I don’t know” to questions you can’t answer. And it’s OK to say: “I know the answer, but it’s too much information for you at your age, I’ll tell you a little bit now and explain more when I think you are old enough.”

Most important of all, for you and your child, look at your circle of safety. Remind your child they are safe here and now with you, that there is a community that you live in and link with who are there to support you and keep you safe. Focus on hope and efficacy and on what can we do right now for the future we want.

Trudy Meehan 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 to talk to children when terrorist attacks and violence dominate the news – https://theconversation.com/how-to-talk-to-children-when-terrorist-attacks-and-violence-dominate-the-news-281879