The Conversation – Page 189 – MIL Submissions Engine

April 23, 2026

New reading textbooks, same problem: Why children’s reading scores in the US aren’t rising

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Shawn Datchuk, Associate Professor of Special Education, University of Iowa

Approximately 34% of U.S. fourth grade students without disabilities and 72% of students with disabilities scored below basic reading levels in 2024. Anna Maslennikova/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Recently, I worked with a group of elementary teachers in Iowa to select new reading textbooks and software. They wanted new materials to improve their district’s stagnant reading scores.

After several days of reviewing materials from a state-approved list, one of the teachers asked me, “Will any of these help my students learn to read?”

I said, “I think so, but I don’t know.”

The teacher looked disappointed. But my answer reflects a hard truth about what reading scholars like me understand about the best ways to teach people to read and boost their literacy. Although research suggests that elementary teachers should focus on helping students learn the sounds of speech, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary and reading comprehension strategies, there is little evidence on how well these skills are packaged into the textbooks used in classrooms.

I am a professor of special education at the University of Iowa and the former director of the Iowa Reading Research Center.

I help schools across the country adopt new textbooks and software to improve their students’ reading and writing. Currently, I’m working with colleagues on a review of how elementary school teachers use new reading textbooks to improve their students’ literacy skills.

There is a crowded marketplace of reading textbooks and software for schools to purchase, and it is often difficult to determine which one is better than the others. As a result, schools may end up purchasing new, expensive materials that do little to improve reading skills.

Two children who look about eight or nine years old sit side by side against a white wall and read books. — Reading scores are improving in some states, but the progress is not consistent.
Will & Deni McIntyre/Corbis Documentary

Stalled reading progress

Many elementary school students, including those with reading disabilities such as dyslexia, struggle to learn to read.

On the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress, a broad measure of reading development given to fourth grade students in every state, approximately 34% of students without disabilities and 72% of students with disabilities scored below basic levels. This means they displayed difficulty with multiple foundational reading skills and were reading below grade level.

The fact that many young students struggle to read at grade level is not a new problem. For the past 30 years, reading performance across the U.S. has remained largely unchanged.

Since 1992, the average NAEP reading score for fourth graders has varied by only a few points. In fact, NAEP scores for most students in fourth grade, the only elementary school grade measured by the NAEP, have declined since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since 2019, a total of 42 states, including California and Tennessee, have passed legislation intended to help students read better by training teachers to use evidence-based reading instruction. This means schools across the country are adopting new approaches to teach reading and using new textbooks.

For example, Louisiana in 2021 and Iowa in 2024 passed legislation that provided teachers with additional training, in addition to giving them state-approved reading textbooks that align with key areas of reading development, such as phonics and reading comprehension strategies.

As a result of these policies, reading scores are improving in some states. However, a substantial number of students across the country are still reading below grade level.

For example, Louisiana had a significant increase in fourth grade reading scores on the 2024 NAEP, rising from 55% of fourth grade students scoring basic or above in 2019 to 60% in 2024. However, 40% of fourth grade students still scored below basic, meaning they were reading below grade level.

Iowa had minimal increases in the reading proficiency of its students in 2024 statewide assessments, rising from 73% to 74% of sixth graders reading proficiently. Most elementary grades’ reading levels stayed the same from the prior year, with approximately 65% to 69% of students reading proficiently.

Despite this large number of students reading at grade level, nearly 70% of students with disabilities were reading below grade level in 2024.

To improve the scores of those still reading below grade level, new research that I and colleagues are doing is looking at the quality of reading textbooks promoted on state-approved lists.

New textbooks aren’t necessarily better

Reading textbooks play a pivotal role in how reading is taught. These textbooks have distinct daily lessons in which specific reading skills and content are taught, such as specific letter sounds or words. Textbooks not only include paper-based materials for students but also online apps and websites, as well as lesson plans for teachers.

There are a variety of textbook publishers and textbooks, and each textbook differs on what reading skills are taught and how often they are taught. For example, a recent review found textbooks differ drastically on the amount of time given for students to learn the sounds of speech. This time difference matters, as students’ reading performance suffered when too little or too much time was spent on learning the sounds of speech.

More than 36 states publish a list of approved reading textbooks, often referred to as high-quality instructional materials. States differ on which textbooks they consider to be of high quality, but they typically rely on the opinion of reading experts. Two popular nonprofit organizations that provide detailed reports on how reading experts rate textbooks include EdReports and The Reading League.

A child sits on a couch with his legs crossed, his face obstructed by a book. He sits next to a backpack. — A 7-year-old child takes part in a literacy program in Commerce City, Colo., in October 2016.
John Leyba/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A need for more research

Despite using expert opinion to determine quality, ineffective textbooks still make it onto state-approved lists. A 2025 study by the Tennessee Reading Research Center found mixed effects for teachers who used state-approved textbooks to teach reading. In the study, students with dyslexia improved their reading on some measures, but overall their reading remained significantly lower than their peers.

Once a state promotes a reading textbook as high quality, it is likely to remain a staple in schools. Most states do not have systems in place to monitor which reading textbooks are used in schools and their potential effects on student reading performance.

Once a school adopts a textbook, it is likely in place for years. Adopting a new one is a time-consuming and expensive process. It can take several years to train staff and several hundred thousand dollars to pay for materials and training.

I think that we ultimately need scholars who research how kids learn to read to closely collaborate with schools as they use new reading textbooks, and then measure whether student reading performance improves. This will help them determine which reading textbooks improve student reading scores. The results of this research can then be shared with other schools across the U.S. that are considering new textbooks. Schools could then make informed decisions on which textbooks to purchase.

Without this kind of research, states may promote ineffective textbooks and leave schools with a confusing choice on which textbooks to use.

Shawn Datchuk consults to several curriculum companies, including Learning Without Tears, Heggerty, and Dyslexico. He receives funding from the Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

– ref. New reading textbooks, same problem: Why children’s reading scores in the US aren’t rising – https://theconversation.com/new-reading-textbooks-same-problem-why-childrens-reading-scores-in-the-us-arent-rising-280125

April 23, 2026

Comment une population de tortues est en train de s’autodétruire sur une île macédonienne

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Xavier Bonnet, Directeur de Recherche CNRS à l’UMR 7372 en biologie et écologie des reptiles, Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chizé; La Rochelle Université

L’île de Golem Grad, en Macédoine du Nord, grouille de tortues d’Hermann. Pourtant, les prévisions estiment que la dernière femelle de l’île pourrait s’éteindre en 2083. Fourni par l’auteur

Sur l’île protégée de Golem Grad, en Macédoine du Nord, les tortues d’Hermann sont en train de s’autodétruire. En cause : la brutalité des mâles, qui épuisent les femelles et les poussent régulièrement du haut des falaises. De ce fait, on compte aujourd’hui cent mâles pour une seule femelle capable de pondre. Cette situation est l’unique exemple de suicide démographique à l’état sauvage connu à ce jour.

Les populations animales de grande taille qui vivent dans des environnements favorables, stables et protégés n’ont aucune raison de s’éteindre. À moins qu’une catastrophe, telle qu’un incendie dévastateur, la destruction de leur habitat ou une surexploitation, n’anéantisse tous les individus ou affaiblisse la population, la rendant vulnérable aux maladies et à d’autres perturbations et aléas.

À l’abri des falaises escarpées qui bordent l’île de Golem Grad, sur le lac Prespa, en Macédoine du Nord, les tortues d’Hermann orientales (Testudo hermanni boettgeri) grouillent sur le plateau boisé. Elles se prélassent au soleil le matin, pâturent dans les prairies et se reposent, se courtisent ou s’accouplent en poussant de petits cris aigus. De prime abord, rien ne semble mettre en danger cette population.

Les falaises de Golem Grad — Golem Grad, île de 18 hectares, abrite un lac perché à 850 mètres d’altitude et, sur son plateau, une forêt de genévriers grecs qui atteignent facilement 10 mètres de haut ainsi que de nombreux reptiles, serpents, lézards et oiseaux. Les falaises abruptes sont particulièrement dangereuses pour les tortues femelles lorsqu’elles sont harcelées par les comportements sexuels violents des mâles.
Fourni par l’auteur

Comme pour d’autres espèces à longue durée de vie, un taux de survie élevé des adultes est essentiel au maintien des populations. Sur Golem Grad, les adultes n’ont pas de prédateurs, car ni les sangliers, les chiens, les rats ou les humains ne vivent sur cette île strictement protégée. Le climat méditerranéen d’altitude est également clément pour les reptiles.

Tous ces facteurs expliquent probablement l’extraordinaire densité de population d’environ 50 individus par hectare, la plus élevée connue pour les tortues. C’est d’ailleurs la facilité d’observation des tortues qui est à l’origine du suivi de terrain mis en place depuis 2008, fruit d’une collaboration scientifique fructueuse entre la Macédoine du Nord, la Serbie et la France. Ce programme de suivi à long terme a reçu le label SEE-Life du CNRS en 2023.

Mais les apparences sont trompeuses : cette population est dans un état critique. Les nombreuses données démographiques, comportementales, physiologiques et expérimentales recueillies pendant près de vingt ans montrent que, bien que très active sur le plan sexuel et reproducteur, cette population est en train de se suicider !

Le suicide démographique

Le suicide démographique est un processus théorique, étrange et contre-intuitif. Les conditions de son existence sont particulières. Pour une espèce donnée, il faut imaginer une population à forte densité où les accouplements violents menacent la survie des femelles. Cela conduirait progressivement à un déséquilibre du sex-ratio (proportion de mâles et de femelles dans une population), un excès de mâles, aggravant la pression sur des femelles toujours moins nombreuses et toujours plus harcelées, ce qui finirait par déclencher un cercle vicieux menant à la disparition des femelles et, à terme, à l’extinction.

Les systèmes d’accouplement coercitifs et violents sont courants dans la nature. Généralement, les mâles harcèlent les femelles jusqu’à obtenir l’accouplement, les blessant parfois. Dans certains cas, ces comportements peuvent entraîner la mort des femelles, comme chez les éléphants de mer, les moutons sauvages, les écureuils gris, les loutres, les cerfs, les grenouilles rousses, les drosophiles, les humains… Toutefois, de telles issues fatales ne profitent pas aux mâles qui n’auront pas de descendance si la femelle meurt lors de l’accouplement. Ces comportements sont ainsi mal adaptatifs et restent marginaux.

Différents mécanismes de régulation bloquent également l’émergence d’un cercle vicieux ou vortex d’extinction. Les femelles peuvent déployer un large éventail de stratégies d’évitement et de défense, telles que se cacher, rechercher la protection d’un mâle dominant ou former des alliances.

Par ailleurs, les mâles les plus violents produisent en général moins de descendants que ceux qui épargnent les femelles, leurs traits comportementaux ont donc moins de chance de persister au cours du temps. En outre, lorsqu’ils sont en surdensité, les mâles ont tendance à immigrer, ce qui relâche la pression sur les femelles. Ainsi, les conflits entre les sexes dans les systèmes d’accouplement coercitifs sont résolus par des équilibres efficaces, sans escalade.

Cependant, de rares expériences impliquant des animaux étudiés en captivité ont montré que les mâles peuvent avoir un fort impact négatif sur les populations lorsque le sex-ratio et la densité de population sont artificiellement biaisés et augmentés. Chez une crevette japonaise, l’excès de mâles réduit la fécondité des femelles tout comme les occasions de s’accoupler. Chez le lézard vivipare, les mâles en surnombre deviennent agressifs ce qui diminue la fécondité comme la survie des femelles.

Dans les conditions naturelles, la réalité écologique, comportementale et évolutive des populations est plus complexe : les femelles peuvent s’enfuir, par exemple, et il n’y a aucune raison pour que le sex-ratio et la densité de population atteignent des extrêmes.

Aucun suicide démographique n’avait jusque-là été observé dans la nature. Les tortues de Golem Grad, qui scient la branche sur laquelle elles se tiennent, apportent ainsi le premier exemple qui défie la règle : les mâles sont en train d’éliminer les femelles !

Qu’est-ce qui dérègle la population de Golem Grad ?

Quelques éléments sur les comportements sexuels et une comparaison avec une population témoin sont utiles pour comprendre ce qui se passe à Golem Grad.

Chez les tortues terrestres, le système d’accouplement est coercitif : les mâles poursuivent les femelles, les cognent, les mordent parfois jusqu’au sang et, en ce qui concerne les tortues d’Hermann orientales, les piquent au niveau du cloaque avec leur longue queue pointue jusqu’à ce qu’elles capitulent.

Pour arriver à monter sur la femelle, le mâle insiste longtemps en la poursuivant, lui mordant les pattes et la cognant, jusqu’à ce qu’elle capitule.
Fourni par l’auteur

Comme les tortues d’Hermann abondent en Macédoine du Nord, nous avons donc pu étudier une autre population très dense située sur les bords du lac à 4 kilomètres de l’île. Génétiquement très proche de celle de Golem Grad, elle vit dans un environnement protégé et sans falaise. Les femelles sont grandes, lourdes (beaucoup pèsent entre 2,5 kg et 2,9 kg) et très fécondes comme le montrent les radiographies. Un peu plus nombreuses que les mâles, elles résistent efficacement à leurs assauts intermittents. Aucun problème démographique n’y a été détecté, les projections démographiques suggèrent un accroissement de la population.

Avec l’extrémité cornée de leur queue, les mâles utilisent piquent le cloaque des femelles, et finissent régulièrement par les blesser sur Golem Grad — Avec l’extrémité cornée de leur queue, les mâles utilisent piquent le cloaque des femelles et finissent régulièrement par les blesser (Golem Grad).
Fourni par l’auteur

Mais à Golem Grad, la situation est bien différente. Sur le plateau, plus de 700 mâles adultes patrouillent à la recherche de la quarantaine de femelles adultes. Par ailleurs, si les conditions physiologiques et environnementales ne sont pas adéquates, une femelle tortue d’Hermann peut très bien ne pas pondre d’œufs après un accouplement. Si elles sont, par exemple, trop maigres et trop stressées, les femelles n’arrivent à accumuler de réserves dans les follicules ovariens et les œufs ne se développent pas.

Il y a donc en réalité plus de 100 mâles par femelle capable de pondre. Pourtant, l’étude des nouveau-nés et des juvéniles montre que le sex-ratio n’est pas biaisé à la naissance. Les mâles en surnombre agissent souvent en meute de trois à huit. Ils harcèlent les femelles à longueur de journée, les blessent et se couchent à côté d’elles le soir, prêts à recommencer le lendemain. Les femelles n’ont pas beaucoup de répit ni assez de temps pour s’alimenter. Elles sont maigres (très peu dépassent 1,6 kg, le maximum étant 1,75 kg) et produisent, quand elles le font, deux fois moins d’œufs que celles de la population témoin.

Ne pouvant fuir, elles sont régulièrement acculées sur le bord des falaises, les mâles insistants les poussent dans le vide. Un GPS avec un accéléromètre installé sur une femelle a ainsi enregistré sa chute de plus de 20 mètres,le 18 juillet 2023 ; elle est morte brisée en deux avec ses trois œufs.

Une carapace de tortue fendue en deux — Cette femelle vivait sur le plateau, elle a été victime d’une chute de plus 20 mètres. Elle a probablement été poussée par des mâles insistants. Les femelles de moins en moins nombreuses sont de plus en plus harcelées, ce qui met en place un cercle vicieux ou « suicide démographique » (terme à ne pas confondre avec les dérives complotistes portées par l’extrême droite).
Fourni par l’auteur

Depuis le début de l’étude, nous identifions toutes les tortues retrouvées mortes sur le terrain où les carapaces se conservent longtemps. Parmi les femelles décédées, 22 % ont fait une chute mortelle, cette proportion est de 7 % chez les mâles.

Avec des collègues britanniques, nous avons également mis au point une horloge épigénétique, mesurant l’âge des individus grâce à une prise de sang. Les plus vieux mâles ont plus de 60 ans, la plus vieille femelle 35 ans. Ces résultats sont cohérents avec les analyses morphologiques, de croissance et démographiques. Le taux de survie est anormalement bas chez les femelles, et ce problème est causé par la brutalité des mâles.

Le vortex d’extinction

Au fil du temps, la baisse du nombre des femelles adultes et de leur fécondité freine le recrutement. Nous avons ainsi pu identifer sur le terrain 45 femelles adultes en 2009, puis 37 en 2010, 20 en 2024 et seulement 15 en 2025.

Or, il faut environ quinze ans à une femelle pour atteindre l’âge adulte. Frustrés par le manque de partenaires sexuels, les mâles s’accouplent donc avec d’autres mâles, des cadavres, des pierres et des femelles immatures. Ils impactent ainsi précocement leur survie et aggravent le problème démographique. Il est possible de modéliser le fonctionnement de la population en intégrant les paramètres ci-dessus. Il est aussi possible de faire des prédictions.

La dernière femelle pourrait mourir en 2083, les mâles persisteront des décennies, car ces tortues peuvent vivre plus de quatre-vingts ans, puis finiront par mourir à leur tour. Il s’agit d’une prédiction, peut-être que la population actuellement au bord de l’extinction va se redresser, même si nous ne voyons pas comment. Si le rythme de vie très lent des tortues nous a offert la chance d’observer un vortex d’extinction dans la nature, et donc de vérifier une théorie étrange, c’est surtout le suivi de terrain intensif qui nous a apporté les données et l’inspiration.

Xavier Bonnet a bénéficié du soutien de SEE-Life CNRS.

– ref. Comment une population de tortues est en train de s’autodétruire sur une île macédonienne – https://theconversation.com/comment-une-population-de-tortues-est-en-train-de-sautodetruire-sur-une-ile-macedonienne-280638

April 23, 2026

Middle East conflict looks increasingly like a war nobody can win

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bamo Nouri, Honorary Research Fellow, Department of International Politics, City St George’s, University of London

Let’s begin with a simple question that rarely gets a straight answer: what would victory over Iran actually look like? In Washington and Jerusalem, the answers tend to sound definitive: eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability, break its regional power, perhaps even force political change at the top. It’s the language of decisive war, the kind with a clear endpoint.

But shift the perspective to Tehran, and the definition changes completely. Victory, for Iran, is survival. That asymmetry shapes the entire conflict. In wars like this, the side that needs less to claim success often has the advantage – and, right now, Iran needs far less.

There is no denying the military imbalance. The US and Israel can strike with extraordinary precision and reach. They have demonstrated that repeatedly – targeting infrastructure, leadership and strategic assets.

But tactical success has yet to translate into political outcome. Iran’s state hasn’t fractured. Its governing system remains intact, and its networks – military, regional, ideological – continue to function. Even its most sensitive capabilities, including nuclear expertise, remain resilient.

The deeper miscalculation lies in assuming Tehran is playing the same game as Washington. It isn’t. Iran is not trying to defeat the US or Israel outright. It is trying to outlast them, complicate their objectives and raise the cost of progress until it becomes unsustainable.

This logic is visible in how the conflict has unfolded. The battlefield extends beyond direct confrontation into shipping lanes, energy markets and regional alliances. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz are not incidental – they are pressure points with global consequences.

Iran’s strategy is not about dominance but entanglement. It doesn’t need battlefield superiority if it can draw its adversaries into a conflict that is too costly to resolve and too complex to conclude.

When wars stall, the instinct is to escalate: more bombing, strikes on energy infrastructure, even, in extremis, “boots on the ground”. The assumption is that more force will finally produce a different outcome.

But Iran is not a passive target. It has already shown a willingness to retaliate across the region, including against Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, as well as targets in Jordan and Iraq. Strikes on Iran’s energy systems would not stay contained – they would invite retaliation against these same states, widening the conflict.

There is another constraint: American is estimated to have already used up around 45% to 50% of key missile stockpiles, including roughly 30% of its Tomahawk missile inventory. So the stark reality is that escalation is no longer just about willingness, but capacity — and in any wider war, the question may not be how far the US can go, but how much it has left.

The consequences would also extend beyond the battlefield. Iran’s response would be sustained attacks on neighbouring countries, on their power, fuel, and water systems, rendering parts of the region increasingly unlivable as temperatures soar over summer. Huge numbers of people would be forced to leave, risking another large-scale displacement crisis.

Even then, the core reality remains unchanged. Iran is built for endurance – any ground campaign would likely become prolonged and attritional. More importantly, escalation misses the point – the problem is not a lack of force, but the absence of a political objective that force can realistically achieve.

Compounding the problem is a quieter but equally significant reality; the US and Israel do not appear to be fully aligned in their end goals. Israel’s posture suggests a pursuit of maximal outcomes – deep, possibly irreversible weakening of Iran’s system, if not outright regime collapse. The US, by contrast, appears to oscillate between coercion, containment and negotiation.

These are not just differences in emphasis – they are differences in strategy. Wars fought without a shared definition of victory rarely produce victory at all. What they produce instead is sustained military activity without strategic convergence – constant movement, but little progress toward resolution.

No conclusion in sight

At some point, it becomes necessary to describe things as they are. This is no longer a war moving toward a decisive conclusion. It is a conflict settling into a pattern – strikes followed by pauses, ceasefires that hold just long enough to prevent collapse, and negotiations that advance just enough to avoid failure.

And those ceasefires tell their own story. Their repeated extension reflects not progress, but constraint. Washington, under Donald Trump, has strong incentives to keep talks alive, avoid deeper escalation, and end the war sooner rather than later. The alternatives – regional war or global economic shock – are far harder to manage. That dynamic gives Tehran leverage. It does not need to concede quickly when delay itself strengthens its position.

Time, in this sense, is not neutral. The longer the conflict drags on, the more it intersects with the most sensitive pressure points of the global economy. Energy markets are stressed, with supply routes under strain and reserves tightening. Industries that depend on stable fuel flows – aviation, shipping, manufacturing – are increasingly exposed.

What began as a regional conflict has morphed into systemic risk. Even limited disruption can ripple outward, affecting prices, supply chains and political stability. The longer the stalemate persists, the greater the cumulative strain and the closer it edges toward a broader economic shock.

Who really holds the advantage?

In purely military terms, the answer is obvious: the US and Israel retain overwhelming superiority. But wars are not decided by capability alone. They are decided by how goals, costs, and time interact.

In that equation, Iran’s position is stronger than it appears. It has set a lower threshold for success, demonstrated a higher tolerance for prolonged pressure, and shown an ability to impose costs beyond the battlefield. Most importantly, it does not need to win. It only needs to prevent its adversaries from achieving their aims. So far, it has done exactly that.

Which brings us back to the original question: can the US and Israel win this war? If winning means forcing Iran into submission or fundamentally reshaping its strategic posture, the answer is increasingly difficult to avoid – they cannot.

What they can do is continue. Manage the conflict, contain its spread and shape its margins. But that is not victory. It is endurance.

The real danger is not defeat, but the persistence of a belief that just a little more pressure, a little more escalation, or a little more time will produce a different result. If that belief is wrong, then this is not a war on the verge of being won. It is a war that cannot be won at all. A forever war.

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

– ref. Middle East conflict looks increasingly like a war nobody can win – https://theconversation.com/middle-east-conflict-looks-increasingly-like-a-war-nobody-can-win-281253

April 23, 2026

Entries now open! The Conversation Prize for writers 2026 – in partnership with Faber and Curtis Brown

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jo Adetunji, Executive Editor – Partnerships, The Conversation

We’re delighted to announce that The Conversation Prize for writers is back for another year.

This annual competition invites academics and researchers to bring their work to life for a wider audience. It’s an opportunity to turn your research, expertise and insights into a compelling longform story that also has the potential to be developed into a bestselling nonfiction book. Whether you’re exploring new findings, re-examining established ideas, or sharing unique perspectives from your field, the prize celebrates clear, engaging writing that connects specialist knowledge with the world beyond academia.

In addition to a £1,000 prize for the winning article and online publication with The Conversation Insights, our partners Faber and The Curtis Brown Group will again be offering mentorship to develop your book from a book editor and a literary agent.

In 2025, Brian Thornton won for his powerful article and book pitch on the systemic issues perpetuating miscarriages of justice. He said:

The Conversation Prize is an amazing opportunity to raise the profile of your research and access new audiences for your work. The support from the lovely people at Curtis Brown and Faber was amazing – they gave me fantastic practical advice on how to develop my work. If you’ve got an interesting idea, a new angle or a piece of research that deserves to be more widely known, this is the competition for you.

Yvonne Reddick, reader in English literature and creative writing at the University of Central Lancashire, and a runner up in the competition for Mountains of Fire – her moving account of what hillwalking with her father taught her about the origins of oil exploration – said:

Entering the writers’ prize was life-changing. I met my agents, Sabhbh Curran and Elliot Prior, and they have helped me to shape the project I know I was born to write. Sharing our research with a wide audience is increasingly important given today’s focus on impact, engagement and knowledge exchange – but the prize also brings the utter joy of sharing your work in The Conversation and beyond.

Nicholas Carter, lecturer in physical geography at the University of Oxford, and a runner up in the competition for his article on how lichens are bringing stones to life, said:

The writers’ prize proved pivotal in securing me both wonderful representation and a book deal for ‘Living Stone’ with Penguin Viking, while opening doors to other work opportunities along the way.

Submissions will be in the form of a 2,000-word article written for a non-academic audience and in the following subject areas: History, Arts + Culture, Business + Economy, Education, Environment, Health, Politics + Society, Science + Technology or World. As part of your submission, we’d also like you to include an idea for a trade nonfiction book on your article subject. Please pitch your proposed book idea in 350 words or less and explain why you’re the right person to write this book.

The competition will close on Sunday 5th July at 11.59pm BST.

To enter, please email your 2,000-word article, plus the following information, to uk-prize@theconversation.com:

Name

Institution

Country

Email

Telephone no.

Your book idea [max 350 words]
Please provide a brief summary of a trade nonfiction book idea based on your article. Tell us why this topic deserves a deeper dive and why it would appeal to an audience of non-academic readers.

About you [max 100 words]
Tell us a little about you – your current role, your area of expertise and any relevant research to your book idea. Why would you be the right author for this book?

Please disclose any conflicts of interest that should be mentioned in relation to your article or book idea.

[Pdf] – please read carefully.

You can find out more about what we’re looking for [Pdf].

– ref. Entries now open! The Conversation Prize for writers 2026 – in partnership with Faber and Curtis Brown – https://theconversation.com/entries-now-open-the-conversation-prize-for-writers-2026-in-partnership-with-faber-and-curtis-brown-280537

April 23, 2026

Pourquoi travaillons-nous ? Dominique Meda est dans La Grande Conversation

Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Christophe Bys, Chef de rubrique Economie+Entreprise, The Conversation

La Grande Conversation recevait Dominique Méda, sociologue du travail et professeur à l’Université Paris Dauphine.

Pourquoi travaillons-nous ? Cette Grande Conversation (l’émission mensuelle de The Conversation et CanalChat en partenariat avec l’Académie des sciences) avec la sociologue Dominique Méda, professeure à l’Université Paris Dauphine, revient sur les multiples fonctions du travail : source de revenu, mais aussi d’identité, de reconnaissance sociale, de structuration du temps et de sens.

Pourquoi le travail continue-t-il d’occuper une place aussi centrale dans nos vies, alors même qu’il est souvent associé à la fatigue, à la frustration ou à la souffrance ? C’est le paradoxe qu’explore Dominique Méda dans son livre _Le travail. Pourquoi travaillons-nous ?_, en revenant sur ce que le travail nous apporte au-delà du revenu : une identité, une reconnaissance, une place dans la société, mais aussi une manière de structurer le temps et de donner sens à l’existence.

Mais de quel travail parle-t-on exactement ? Pourquoi certaines activités choisies librement nous permettent-elles de nous épanouir, quand des tâches proches deviennent pénibles dès lors qu’elles s’exercent sous contrainte ? Pourquoi les métiers les plus utiles restent-ils souvent les moins reconnus ? Et comment repenser le travail à l’heure où les jeunes s’en détournent, où les conditions se dégradent et où les frontières entre activité, emploi, engagement et soin deviennent plus floues ?

– ref. Pourquoi travaillons-nous ? Dominique Meda est dans La Grande Conversation – https://theconversation.com/pourquoi-travaillons-nous-dominique-meda-est-dans-la-grande-conversation-281256

April 23, 2026

How the Trump administration co-opts pop culture and religion for political gain

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Brent Keogh, Lecturer in the School of Communications, University of Technology Sydney

On April 15, United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth led a prayer session at the Pentagon. But instead of quoting from any recognised canon of sacred scripture, Hegseth’s prayer sounded unmistakably like Samuel L. Jackson’s “Jules”, a hitman character from Quentin Tarantino’s iconic 1994 film Pulp Fiction.

In his interrogation of white-collar criminal Brett, Jules delivers a heavily embellished monologue that draws from, and expands on, Ezekiel 25:17. The scene climaxes, in typical Tarantino style, with the brutal murder of Brett and his colleagues.

Hegseth’s version, which he said was recited by the Sandy 1 Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) mission in Iran, deviates only slightly from Jackson’s monologue.

The biggest difference in this case is the symbolism. The target here is not a bunch of college kids with a briefcase they shouldn’t have, but the nation of Iran. Hegseth is the mobster and the American military are the hitmen on a violent but “divinely sanctioned” war.

The tone has changed, too. While Jackson’s monologue is highly dramatic, stylised, and imbued with more than just a little irony, Hegseth’s reframe renders it serious and devotional.

Leaving aside the cognitive dissonance of an avowedly “Christian” administration conflating Tarantino with scripture, this moment speaks to a rather unsettling relationship between Trump, pop culture and religion.

From business mogul, to Jedi, to the Pope

Trump courted pop culture prior to his politics, most notably in cameos such as Home Alone 2 (1992), The Little Rascals (1994), and as the host of The Apprentice (2004-17). He even leveraged his celebrity status to boost himself to the presidential platform.

As president, he has continued to tap into pop culture dialogues. He uses the power of social media and AI to promote his brand and policies, while weighing in on the culture wars.

On May 4 of last year (Star Wars Day), Trump posted an image on X of himself as a muscular Jedi, via the official White House account. However, he seems unaware that by brandishing a red lightsaber he is actually representing himself as a Sith Lord, the epitome of evil in the Star Wars universe.

In October, he posted an AI-generated video of himself in Top Gun mode, pouring what appeared to be faeces on protesters attending a No Kings rally.

He also took advantage of the buzz surrounding the Catholic Church’s 2025 conclave, and the popular film of same name, by posting an AI image of himself as the Pope.

By using the shared texts, cultural energy and narratives of pop culture, Trump is able to slam his opponents, take advantage of a polarised political context, and whip up support from his base.

These moments allow his administration to shape public conversation and draw attention back to them, sometimes with the explicit disapproval of the content creators involved. Responding to Trump’s Star Wars post, Mark Hamill (the actor who played Luke Skywalker) said the post was: “proof this guy is full of Sith”.

Bigger than Jesus?

Trump’s supporters have historically viewed his engagement with popular culture as humorous, cheering on their hero in the White House. But detractors sense a darker side. Each of these moments symbolically elevates the Trump administration, often at the expense of others.

The May 4 post is a case in point. The target here is the “radical Left” and Trump is raised to the rank of Jedi master (or Sith Lord). In the Top Gun video, Trump demonstrates his disdain for citizens exercising their democratic right to protest.

What connects these examples is the hubris of the administration, centred around its seemingly charismatic leader. Trump’s engagement with contemporary culture has shifted from relatively harmless cameos to putting himself at the centre of a Manichaean battle of good versus evil. Using both pop culture and religious references, he frames himself as a divine figure, fighting a cosmic war for the soul of the universe.

The most recent (and most on-the-nose example) of Trump’s hubris came earlier this month. As part of his continuing war of words with Pope Leo XIV, he posted an AI photo depicting himself as Jesus.

Here, he elevates himself beyond the union of ecclesiastical and political power to the highest possible authority figure in Christianity.

In doing so, he parallels the Ancient Roman emperors who conceived of themselves as “sons of God” and demanded allegiance and worship from their subjects (often at the tip of a blade).

The emperor cult of the Roman Empire is still very much alive in Trump’s America.

In these entanglements of pop culture, religion and politics, the MAGA movement sends a clear message to anyone with a ear to listen: this is our Master Jedi, our Maverick, our Messiah, even, and he will respond with “great vengeance and furious anger” against his enemies.

Brent Keogh 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 the Trump administration co-opts pop culture and religion for political gain – https://theconversation.com/how-the-trump-administration-co-opts-pop-culture-and-religion-for-political-gain-281011

April 23, 2026

We can’t know if Donald Trump has dementia. Even if he did, it wouldn’t excuse his actions

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Joyce Siette, Associate Professor | Deputy Director, The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University

Over recent weeks, speculation has grown about US President Donald Trump’s erratic behaviour during the US-Israel war on Iran.

While questioning Trump’s mental fitness for office, various commentators have suggested he has malignant narcissism, Alzheimer’s disease or frontotemporal dementia, and is experiencing accelerating cognitive decline and a “profound psychological crisis”.

The claim of frontotemporal dementia in particular has stuck. This form of dementia can affect judgement, empathy, language skills and impulse control.

Trump’s critics say frontotemporal dementia explains his escalating threats, profanities and tendency to ramble.

But is frontotemporal dementia really the answer?

Diagnosing someone with this condition from afar is not only irresponsible – it’s impossible. It may also inadvertently give Trump an “out” for offensive but intentional behaviour, while increasing stigma for those who live with dementia.

What is frontotemporal dementia?

Frontotemporal dementia describes a group of neurodegenerative disorders that mostly affect the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain. These are regions involved in behaviour, personality, language and decision-making.

Unlike dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, frontotemporal dementia rarely begins with memory loss. Instead, early symptoms involve changes in social conduct, emotional regulation or language abilities.

There are several variants. The most common is behavioural-variant, which presents as a gradual decline in how a person behaves, interacts with others and expresses their personality.

Frontotemporal dementia is rare. Each year, around two or three out of 100,000 people are diagnosed with frontotemporal dementia worldwide. At any time, roughly nine out of 100,000 people live with the condition.

How is it diagnosed?

Diagnosis is complex and cannot rely on observation alone.

To make a diagnosis, a multidisciplinary team of clinicians will examine the person’s personal and medical history. This includes information from family members, neurological examinations and formal cognitive testing to consider possible diagnoses.

Brain imaging, such as MRI or PET scans, are used to identify changes in the structure and function of the brain. In some cases, genetic testing may be used when family history suggests inherited risk.

A “possible” diagnosis requires someone to demonstrate at least three of six core features. These are:

disinhibition
apathy
loss of empathy
compulsive behaviour
hyperorality (excessive tendency to examine objects using the mouth)
loss of executive functions, the set of cognitive abilities that underpin our ability to plan and make decisions.

Importantly, these features must also show clear progression over time.

But that is only the beginning. To reach a “probable” diagnosis, there must be imaging evidence as well as clear changes in a person’s ability to function independently in daily activities.

A “definite” diagnosis can only be confirmed through genetic testing or brain changes linked to disease. This can only happen after death because it requires physically examining the brain itself.

Even with these criteria, frontotemporal dementia remains one of the most challenging diseases to diagnose accurately. Its symptoms often overlap with psychiatric disorders such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, and its presentation varies widely between people.

Careful differential diagnosis, which rules out other conditions, is therefore required.

Why we shouldn’t diagnose from a distance

Diagnosing frontotemporal dementia – or any form of dementia – is a complex process. Any “diagnosis” made without meeting the person, or looking at clinical evidence, is just speculation.

But there are other dangers in blaming controversial actions on dementia, such as Trump’s recent threat to wipe out “a whole civilisation” if Iran did not comply with US demands.

First, attributing behaviour we don’t like to dementia reduces accountability for intentional actions.

We know frontotemporal dementia affects brain regions that control impulse and social understanding. It does not explain political extremism, strategic decision-making or ideological conviction – especially where it has been longstanding.

Second, it further stigmatises those who live with the condition, reinforcing the idea that people with dementia are erratic, dangerous or morally compromised.

This stigma remains a major barrier to effective dementia care and prevention. Misconceptions can delay diagnosis, discourage families from seeking help, and make people with dementia feel more isolated.

In frontotemporal dementia, where changes in personality are already misunderstood, the risk of mischaracterisation is particularly acute.

The ethics of restraint

Humans are driven to make sense of troubling events. This negativity bias that has served us well in evolution. But it creates an asymmetry worth noting.

When leaders behave admirably, their actions are rarely attributed to neurological health. But when behaviour is troubling, the impulse to medicalise it can be strong. This selective framing turns diagnosis into a rhetorical tool rather than a clinical question.

The health of political leaders is a legitimate public concern. But there is a difference between evidence-based reporting (grounded in disclosed medical information) and speculative diagnosis based on observation from a distance.

Medical professionals have long recognised this boundary. Ethical guidelines warn against diagnosing individuals without examination, in part because doing so undermines trust in both medicine and the media.

Speculation about dementia may feel like a way of making sense of behaviour that is difficult, unsettling or even morally questionable. But it is a poor substitute for clinical rigour.

For those living with frontotemporal dementia, it risks turning a serious neurological disease into a casual metaphor that explains little and harms a lot.

Joyce Siette receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Paul Strutt 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. We can’t know if Donald Trump has dementia. Even if he did, it wouldn’t excuse his actions – https://theconversation.com/we-cant-know-if-donald-trump-has-dementia-even-if-he-did-it-wouldnt-excuse-his-actions-281131

April 23, 2026

How the war in Iran has brought European countries closer together – without Trump

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Romain Fathi, Associate Professor, School of History, ANU / Chercheur Associé at the Centre d’Histoire de Sciences Po, Australian National University

The United States under President Donald Trump and the European Union have a complicated relationship. On one hand, European countries and the US have built some of the strongest alliances since the end of the second world war. On the other, since the start of Trump’s second term in 2025, they have openly clashed on significant issues: tariffs, NATO contributions, Palestinian statehood, Israel’s interventionism, Ukraine support levels and Greenland’s sovereignty.

Trump’s sudden war on Iran is the latest of these clashes, but it is distinctive because it is shaking the world’s economy. The US war on Iran, alongside Israel’s war on Lebanon, is accelerating a notable reshaping of European alliances and strategic thinking about the union’s future.

The EU has more than 450 million inhabitants, and its GDP is nearly on par with that of the US or China. Despite its polymorphic nature, and in fact perhaps because of it, it is a world player that can exercise considerable sway over international affairs.

European leaders are now attempting to drive a lasting ceasefire, and perhaps even peace, between the US and Iran, with the aim of reopening the strait of Hormuz as soon as possible.

A non-UN/NATO sanctioned conflict

EU countries believe in the rules-based order and international institutions. This is not only because of their democratic constitution and values, but also because they offer them better protection than “might makes right”.

Trump’s unilateral war on Iran sits well beyond international conventions. It was neither sanctioned by a UN mandate or resolution, nor approved by NATO. As a result, European leaders have refused to contribute.

Spain and Italy have outwardly refused to allow US weapon-carrying planes bound for the Iran conflict to use their bases. Meanwhile, France is taking a more case-by-case approach in authorising or declining use of its airspace as part of operations linked to the conflict.

Spain, Italy, Germany, France and the United Kingdom have also refused to send direct military support to contribute to Trump’s war. However, France and the UK are willing to deploy within a peace or maritime security framework once the war is over.

Europe united, at last?

Trump’s war on Iran has accelerated a much deeper, more significant process: the coordination of European leaders on central issues such as European strategic independence in defence, diplomacy and energy.

Since Trump’s return to the Oval Office, there has been a subtle but important diversification of the EU’s diplomatic and military agreements with regional partners. Six such agreements have been signed by the EU, followed by a dozen more bilateral agreements of its member states with other countries.

This greater European coordination is being validated and reinforced by the war in Iran. The global disruption in the production and circulation of petro-based products generated by the near total closure of the Straight of Hormuz is prompting urgent European responses.

On April 17, in Paris, UK and French leaders Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, flanked by their German and Italian counterparts Friedrich Merz and Giorgia Meloni, co-presided over a conference on navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. They were joined by 49 other countries, with more than half of the EU’s member states present alongside representatives of EU institutions and international organisations.

The meeting proposed the “full, immediate, and unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz”. The leaders agreed to start planning, from London next week, a neutral mission to guarantee safety and free passage in the strait.

The war in Iran and Trump’s criticisms of the pope have ruptured Trump’s relationship with Meloni, whose electoral base has grown worried about the US president’s unpredictability.

A shifting tide

For a time, Trump and the MAGA movement had worked hard, and somewhat successfully, to drive a wedge between European leaders. They supported the far right in Germany, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Meloni in Italy.

But, just three days before Meloni arrived in Paris, Orbán faced an enormous electoral defeat. During the 16 years of his iron-fist rule in Hungary, the pro-Russian Orbán had been a critic of Europe, creating considerable headaches for the EU by blocking a range of initiatives and providing sensitive information to his friend Vladimir Putin. His replacement by a more moderate leader, Péter Magyar, has sparked significant hope in European chancelleries for greater unity.

The internal divisions that Trump relied on to deal with Europe are eroding.

Furthermore, his threats to acquire Greenland only months ago were met by immediate European reactions such as putting a commercial agreement with the US on ice, launching operation “Arctic Endurance”, and affirming Danish and European sovereignty. The EU has once again shown its ability to resist Washington’s pressures and affirm its strategic autonomy.

Where now for Europe?

These episodes in national and international affairs have prepared the ground for a more united approach to the current crisis. European leaders, so often hampered by divisions exacerbated by Russia and the US, are now in a unique position to weigh in on the current Iran crisis and the shock it is delivering to the global economy.

This is because the concerns that unite them – energy security, potential inflation and unemployment – overrule any ideological affinity towards Moscow or Washington.

Besides greater diplomatic integration of European member states, the current crisis is also a catalyst for the European Commission to accelerate its efforts to limit consumption of fossil fuel, safeguard supply networks and accelerate the electrification of Europe’s economies through nuclear and renewables.

Paradoxically, the Iran and Hormuz crises have – as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did in 2022 – driven further European integration. This renewed faith in a European voice is happening both between member states and between European institutions such as the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Foreign Affairs Council.

This rapprochement between European leaders is starting to yield outcomes beyond the Iranian crisis. Visiting Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk on April 20, Macron declared he was “reasonably optimistic” for a “new era in Europe”, starting with more support for Ukraine, previously vetoed by the departed Orban.

The significant disruptions created by Trump’s attack on Iran may well have the side effect of a more autonomous and sovereign Europe. Despite the tensions between the US and European states, all have an interest in a peaceful Iran – and Ukraine.

For some in Europe, the war in Iran may be resolved amicably if further collaboration is achieved through US support in Ukraine.

Romain Fathi 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 the war in Iran has brought European countries closer together – without Trump – https://theconversation.com/how-the-war-in-iran-has-brought-european-countries-closer-together-without-trump-281025

April 22, 2026

If Justice Alito resigns before the midterms, a Trump nominee to the Supreme Court is likely to sail through confirmation

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas share a laugh at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Washington is buzzing with the possibility that President Donald Trump might name one or more Supreme Court justices before the November midterm elections.

In a conversation with Fox Business TV host Maria Bartiromo on April 15, 2026, Trump discussed the potential retirement of Justice Samuel Alito, 76, the reliably conservative justice appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005.

Trump praised Alito as “a great justice” and said that he is prepared to appoint a replacement, should Alito retire.

Trump added, “In theory, it’s two – you just read the statistics – it could be two, could be three, could be one.”

Trump didn’t say who the other potential retiring justices are. Speculation from pundits is that he is referring to Justice Clarence Thomas, 77, another solid conservative vote. Thomas, appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1991, is the court’s oldest justice and longest-serving member.

In the same Fox interview, Trump pointed to former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was under intense pressure to retire during President Barack Obama’s presidency. Ginsburg opted to stay on the bench and died in September 2020.

Republicans blocked Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Then, in 2020, Trump replaced Ginsburg with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, solidifying a 6-3 conservative majority.

As a scholar of the Supreme Court confirmation process, I know the timing of Trump’s comments is closely linked to November’s midterm elections.

If Democrats were to take over the Senate following the midterms, it is very unlikely they would confirm a Trump-appointed Supreme Court nominee. Instead, they would probably follow the precedent set by Republicans in 2020 and block a Trump pick.

The clock is ticking on November’s midterm elections, and Democrats’ chances of taking back the Senate are improving. Assuming a current Supreme Court justice retires, here’s what has to happen for Trump and Senate Republicans to successfully confirm a successor.

The Supreme Court confirmation process

The Constitution says that the Senate provides “advice and consent” on presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. Over the course of the nation’s history, this has developed into a complex process.

Once the Senate receives a nomination from the president, it goes to the Judiciary Committee.

This is where the most public part of the confirmation process takes place: confirmation hearings. These typically last three to four days and feature a high stakes question-and-answer session with the nominee.

Prior to the hearings, senators and the nominee engage in a substantial amount of preparation.

Senators, with their staffs, do extensive background research on the nominee, which helps inform their questioning. Some of this is accomplished through the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, to which nominees provide written answers. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s 2022 questionnaire was 149 pages long. It included questions about organizational memberships, public speeches and judicial opinions authored.

A Black woman with her back to the camera listens to a man speak behind a bench. — Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson listens to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee members on Capitol Hill on March 21, 2022.
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, Pool

Meanwhile, the nominee makes courtesy calls to senators to build support for confirmation.

At roughly the same time, the nominee takes part in hearing preparation, known as “murder boards.” Here, the nominee’s allies play the roles of members of the Judiciary Committee, anticipating the type of tough questions the nominee will face from skeptical senators from the opposition party of the appointing president.

During Jackson’s murder boards, for instance, the focus was on expected Republican attacks that Jackson was soft on crime.

Within a few days of the end of the confirmation hearings, the Judiciary Committee votes on its recommendation to the full Senate. Then the nomination goes back to the full Senate for more discussion and a final confirmation vote. A simple majority is needed to confirm a Supreme Court nominee.

For the nine members of the court, it has taken an average of 70 days between presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, according to data from The U.S. Supreme Court Database. But this number has decreased recently, with Barrett and Jackson taking 30 and 41 days, respectively, to be confirmed.

So, as long as there is roughly a month before the November midterms, it is likely that there is enough time for the Republican Senate to confirm a Trump nominee.

Democrats have limited options

In 2017, Senate Republicans ended the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. It was a move to secure the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch.

This reduced the threshold for confirmation from 60 votes to 51 votes. Perhaps most importantly, it also severely limited the options available to the minority party to block a Supreme Court confirmation.

With a 53-47 Republican majority in the Senate, so long as Republicans stick together, it will be very difficult for Senate Democrats to block a Trump nominee.

There are some delay tactics available to Democrats – they can perhaps even grind the entire Senate to a halt – but they may pay a political price for these tactics. Republicans, for instance, may try to paint Democrats as obstructionist, potentially motivating a voter backlash against the Democratic Party in the midterm elections.

Nonetheless, Democrats may view this as a fight worth having, since the confirmation of another Republican-appointed justice will ensure conservative dominance on the court for decades – if not generations – to come.

Paul M. Collins Jr. 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. If Justice Alito resigns before the midterms, a Trump nominee to the Supreme Court is likely to sail through confirmation – https://theconversation.com/if-justice-alito-resigns-before-the-midterms-a-trump-nominee-to-the-supreme-court-is-likely-to-sail-through-confirmation-280887

April 22, 2026

Did NASA’s Curiosity rover find signs of ancient life on Mars? An astrobiologist explains how we determine ‘life’

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Allyson Brady, Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, Carleton University

NASA’s Curiosity Mars rover took this selfie in 2020, after drilling a rock sample from a spot nicknamed “Mary Anning.” After years of extensive analysis, the sample has revealed the greatest diversity of organic molecules ever found on Mars.
(NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS)

NASA’s Curiosity rover has identified seven new organic compounds on the planet Mars, according to new research published in Nature Communications.

The researchers believe this organic matter may have been preserved on Mars for more than 3.4 billion years. But is it evidence of life?

It’s not yet possible to determine whether it was delivered by a meteor (or comet or interplanetary dust particles), was formed through geological processes or may be linked to potential ancient life on Mars.

This begs a few questions: What exactly is life? How do we know what to look for? Why is it so hard to determine if an organic compound came from life or not?

As an astrobiologist, my job is to study life in the universe. I have participated in several NASA and Canadian Space Agency (CSA) projects focused on learning how to detect signs of life, as well as training astronauts to be field scientists.

This has taken me to field sites in the Antarctic, hot springs in Western Canada, volcanoes in Hawaii and underwater in British Columbia.

The study of extreme environments on Earth, along with exploration of the lifeless surface of the moon, can help us understand what life can look like. It can also help us understand the other potential non-biological processes that can form organic compounds like ones that have been found on Mars.

Astronaut Chris Hadfield dives into Pavilion Lake, B.C., as part of an international, multidisciplinary project to explore the origin of rare freshwater carbonate rock formations (microbialites). Similar processes possibly occurred on other planets.
(CSA/Donnie Reid)

Life in extreme environments on Earth

On Earth, scientists study life in extreme environments that we might also expect to find on early Earth or other planets such as Mars. We call these “analogue” environments.

For example, micro-organisms can thrive in the hot springs of Yellowstone National Park, deep underground or in cold icy places like Antarctica.

Two people in red snow coats on a frozen lake with deep blue sky in the background. — The author (left) collects water samples from Lake Untersee for a biosignature study. This is one of Antarctica’s largest and deepest surface lakes, known for its distinctive water chemistry.
(Klemens Weisleitner)

As astrobiologists, we can use these analogue environments to test equipment and concepts of operation that may be used to plan life-detection missions on other planets. They also help us better understand how life can survive in extreme environments.

Importantly, these environments help us recognize what kinds of evidence life can leave behind. Identifying biosignatures, or unambiguous signs of life, that can be targeted when looking for life elsewhere is critically important.

On Earth, it’s not hard to find evidence of life. Simply look around you. We are also constantly discovering the existence of life in places where it may have once seemed impossible, such as these microbes buried deep in ocean mud.

Marine microbiologist Karen Lloyd introduces deep-subsurface microbes: tiny organisms that live buried deep in ocean mud.

In fact, finding locations where there is no life is often more challenging.

What is not a sign of life?

The moon does not contain life. Unlike Mars, where there’s mounting evidence of a warmer watery past, as far as we know there’s little evidence to suggest the moon ever had the right conditions to support life.

The moon is a valuable study site for astrobiology because it offers clues about what is not a sign of life. The moon is constantly being hit by objects such as meteorites and asteroids, objects that would have also hit early Earth and Mars, leaving visible craters on the surface.

Meteorites can contain organic molecules such as amino acids and hydrocarbons that look very much like ones we would expect to be left behind by living organisms.

Micro-organisms, just like your own cells, contain lipids, proteins and nucleic acids. When they die, their organic molecules can become trapped in material such as sediments or minerals, and in some cases, preserved over long periods of time. Even if somewhat degraded, they might survive over millions or even billions of years in a recognizable form even if life itself is no longer present.

A closeup view of the moon's cratered surface, grey in colour. — A closeup view taken by the Artemis II crew of Vavilov Crater, on the rim of the older and larger Hertzsprung basin, on the surface of the moon.
(NASA)

But life is not the only way organic molecules can form. Some abiotic chemical reactions can produce organic molecules with no life required. These abiotic processes can lead to the formation of simple organic molecules, life’s building blocks, that form the basis of more complex components.

Reports of gases such as methane or the detection of hydrocarbons on Mars could be related to life. However, scientists know that there are other ways these could have formed. As with the compounds discovered by NASA’s Curiosity rover, they may not readily meet the biosignature criteria of being unambiguously biological.

It’s not easy to decide what is a biosignature and what might have an alternative explanation. Studying other locations or materials without life can help.

Analysis of samples brought back to Earth from the asteroid Bennu in 2023 found organics such as sugars, including ribose, for example. Ribose is a component of RNA. This does not mean that there is life on Bennu, instead it shows that these biologically important molecules may be widely distributed in the solar system.

These kinds of investigations tell us that there are some organics that may not make good biosignatures because there is an alternative non-biological explanation.

From the moon to Mars

Exploration of the moon helps create an inventory of organic molecules that, while often associated with life, also have another explanation. They may have been delivered by a meteorite and been preserved all this time.

For example, studies of lunar regolith — the dusty moon version of soil — brought back from the Apollo missions and from recent Chinese-led missions have identified organic molecules such as amino acids, ketones and amines. If these same organics are found on other planets, it means that they are not necessarily signs of life. At least, not on their own.

Prior to NASA’s recent Artemis II mission, astronauts, including Canadian Jeremy Hansen, underwent geology training at sites like the Kamestastin Lake impact structure in Labrador. This training prepared them to make detailed geological observations of the moon.

Artemis II crew Victor Glover, Reid Wiseman and Jeremy Hansen huddle around a camera in the Orion spacecraft. — Artemis II crew Victor Glover, Reid Wiseman and Jeremy Hansen configure their camera equipment shortly before beginning their lunar flyby observations, April 2026.
(NASA)

These geological features might play a role in the preservation of organics, possibly shielding them from high temperatures and destructive radiation, sort of like a fridge. Similar features on Mars may then be good targets for astrobiology investigations.

With a 2028 moon landing planned for NASA’s Artemis IV mission, we will soon have even more lunar material to study. These missions are critical for helping astrobiologists fine-tune those unambiguous signs of life that we can then search for when we get to Mars.

As NASA’s Curiosity and Perseverance rovers continue exploring Mars, and new missions are planned, in the future we may be able to more confidently answer the question of is it life?

Allyson Brady receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and has been supported by the Canadian Space Agency in the past.

– ref. Did NASA’s Curiosity rover find signs of ancient life on Mars? An astrobiologist explains how we determine ‘life’ – https://theconversation.com/did-nasas-curiosity-rover-find-signs-of-ancient-life-on-mars-an-astrobiologist-explains-how-we-determine-life-280658