Source: The Conversation – UK – By Eugene Malthouse, Research Fellow, Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, University of Nottingham
Some buildings leave such an impression when you visit them that they can be forever summoned to the mind’s eye. For us, these include the soaring dome of St Paul’s cathedral in London, the Georgian grandeur of Royal Crescent in Bath, and the ascending towers and pinnacles of King’s College Chapel in Cambridge.
As psychologists with a particular focus on wellbeing, we are fascinated by the feelings these buildings instil in us – a sense of being grounded, of momentary stillness, even of awe.
We wanted to understand how people value different urban settings – and which types of building they view most positively. In England, 83 out of every 100 people now live in towns and cities, so variations in these urban landscapes can hold important consequences for wellbeing.
Our study, published in Frontiers in Psychology, found a particularly powerful effect when people viewed older buildings, particularly those classified as being of special historic or architectural interest. Indeed, we found these listed buildings are comparable with forests and lakes in terms of how people rated their scenic quality.
How we tested urban scenicness
Our study combined two large datasets – the first from Scenic-Or-Not, a website where people rate the scenicness of photographs taken throughout Britain on a scale from 1 (“not scenic”) to 10 (“very scenic”). For our analysis, we used only photographs taken within English urban areas, giving us 28,547 ratings of 3,843 images.
We combined this with Historic England’s dataset of more than 370,000 listed buildings throughout England and Wales, plus their grade – I (of exceptional interest), II* (particularly important) or II (special interest) – and the century in which the building was constructed.
A photo of a Nottinghamshire church on the Scenic-Or-Not website. B Hilton
This enabled us to compare the ratings of views with and without listed buildings, and to explore other questions such as how the grade or century of construction influences the scenicness rating. Sometimes these buildings featured prominently in the photographs, other times only marginally – we counted them all the same.
We also used Google’s Vision AI tool to detect other features in photographs that might influence scenicness. This allowed us to rule out the possibility that photographs containing historic buildings were judged more scenic because they also tended to contain trees, for example.
In our study, the average scenicness of English urban areas was 2.43 out of 10 – significantly lower than how people rate the scenicness of natural environments. In another study that used the same platform to rate British rural scenes, these averaged 4.16.
But we also found that when a listed building was present in the photograph, this score was on average 0.61 points higher – a 25% increase. As shown in this table, this “historic building effect” was comparable to that of forests and lakes.
Impact of different features on scenicness rating:
The effect of a listed building is similar to that of a forest or lake. Eugene Malthouse, CC BY-SA
Photographs in which the most prominent listed building was either grade I or grade II* listed were perceived more scenic than those featuring slightly less historically or architecturally significant (grade II) buildings. Images featuring buildings constructed in earlier centuries were also judged more scenic.
What makes historic buildings so valued?
The scenic quality of urban areas has previously been linked with variations in happiness and health. Our study shows old buildings in particular make important contributions to urban scenicness. This suggests that historic buildings may be worth preserving not only for their architectural significance but for their effect on people’s wellbeing.
But it also raises the question of whether the sheer age of these buildings makes them so impactful – or is it also the nature of their design?
Experts in architecture have speculated on the reasons old buildings continue to be valued so highly. For example, the apparent timeless popularity of certain historic styles, such as the symmetry of Georgian architecture in Bath’s Royal Crescent, has been contrasted with modern architecture that disregards or rejects traditional proportional guidelines.
But there are also psychological reasons why many people value historic buildings so much. These might include their reassuring sense of permanence; their weathered and imperfect nature; the stories of past lives they hold; or their ability to conjure feelings of nostalgia within us.
We hope to learn more about why people feel so strongly about historic buildings, and the effects such buildings can have on their wellbeing, in our future research. In the meantime, please share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.
Eugene Malthouse received funding from the European Research Council.
Sidney Sherborne received funding from the European Research Council.
Début décembre 2025, Donald Trump posait, sourire aux lèvres, à la Maison-Blanche aux côtés du président congolais Félix Tshisekedi et du président rwandais Paul Kagame. « Nous réglons une guerre qui dure depuis des décennies», déclarait-il. Mais derrière ces grandes paroles se dessine une nouvelle forme de diplomatie, où la paix devient une monnaie d’échange et les minerais stratégiques de la République démocratique du Congo, l’enjeu central. Que signifie réellement cet accord pour la paix en RDC et pour la politique mondiale ?
L’accord entre les deux pays s’appuie sur le texte initial signé le 27 juin 2025.
Il prévoit notamment le retrait des troupes rwandaises de l’est du Congo et la neutralisation des forces rebelles des Forces démocratiques de libération du Congo (FDLR) opérant en RDC. Il inclut aussi le désarmement et la réintégration des groupes armés, ainsi que le retour des réfugiés et des déplacés internes, avec des garanties d’accès humanitaire. Enfin, il prévoit la création d’un cadre de coopération économique régionale centré sur les minerais critiques.
Nos travaux portent, entre autres, sur la gouvernance dans les zones de conflit, l’économie de guerre, ainsi que les conflits autour des ressources en RD Congo. Nous soutenons que, sans s’attaquer aux dynamiques historiques complexes du conflit, l’accord risque de ne pas garantir une paix durable.
Ce qui frappe n’est pas tant la promesse d’une plus grande transparence dans les chaînes d’approvisionnement — des mécanismes existent déjà — que le fait que celle-ci s’inscrive dans un partenariat direct avec le gouvernement et des entreprises américaines. Washington a d’ailleurs signé des accords économiques bilatéraux séparés avec les deux pays.
Une autre préoccupation concerne l’approche proposée pour traiter ces questions. Ce qui frappe n’est pas tant la promesse d’une plus grande transparence dans les chaînes d’approvisionnement — des mécanismes existent déjà — que le fait que celle-ci s’inscrive dans un partenariat direct avec le gouvernement et des entreprises américaines. Washington a d’ailleurs signé des accords économiques bilatéraux séparés avec les deux pays.
La tentative de l’administration Trump de négocier un accord de paix en RD Congo doit être considérée à la lumière de son approche décomplexée de la politique mondiale, axée sur la sécurisation des ressources telles que le pétrole au Venezuela et les minéraux critiques au Congo. Si les méthodes diffèrent, l’objectif sous-jacent est le même : garantir l’accès à des actifs économiques stratégiques et renforcer la position des États-Unis sur la scène mondiale. Dans les deux cas, cette approche a ignoré les institutions multilatérales et les cadres de coopération existants pour privilégier une approche unilatérale.
L’accord entre la RD Congo et le Rwanda est le fruit de mois de diplomatie discrète menée par Massad Boulos, conseiller spécial de Trump pour l’Afrique. À première vue, il semble prometteur. Mais une analyse plus fine révèle une logique inquiétante : une guerre complexe façonnée par des dynamiques historiques profondes, réduite à une question d’accès aux minerais, en ignorant les facteurs qui alimentent la violence depuis plus de trente ans.
Dans cette approche, la paix devient une monnaie d’échange plutôt qu’un processus politique. Plus alarmant encore, elle légitime – voire récompense – le Rwanda pour avoir envoyé des troupes dans un État souverain voisin, en violation des principes fondamentaux du droit international. Cette atteinte à l’intégrité territoriale crée un précédent dangereux et reflète une tendance plus large observée avec l’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie et les attaques israéliennes au Liban. Elle nous éloigne d’une solution durable à un conflit qui cause des souffrances humanitaires immenses depuis des années.
Plus largement, l’administration Trump a systématiquement cherché à négocier la paix par une approche transactionnelle, reposant sur des incitations économiques allant des accords miniers aux menaces tarifaires pour influencer les parties au conflit. C’est le même schéma utilisé dans le différend frontalier entre la Thaïlande et le Cambodge ou dans le conflit entre l’Arménie et l’Azerbaïdjan. Avec, jusq’ici, des résultats mitigés.
Des garanties sécuritaires floues
Une raison majeure de ces échecs est que ces accords ne s’attaquent pas aux causes historiques complexes des conflits : griefs identitaires, héritages de répression étatique, institutions fragiles et rivalités géopolitiques. Les incitations économiques promises sont souvent liées à des investissements qui ne se concrétiseront que dans un avenir lointain. Elles ne permettent donc pas de créer la confiance immédiate nécessaire pour engager un processus de paix.
Les processus de paix menés par les États-Unis se heurtent aussi à des problèmes d’application. Sous Trump, le poids des garanties sécuritaires américaines reste flou, tout comme l’influence réelle sur les acteurs susceptibles de faire échouer l’accord. Sans surprise, plusieurs accords ont été violés ou partiellement mis en œuvre. C’est aussi le cas pour l’accord Rwanda–Congo.
Alors que les dirigeants posaient côte à côte à la Maison-Blanche, les combats s’intensifiaient sur le terrain avec une nouvelle offensive des rebelles AFC/M23 soutenus par Kigali. Le 10 décembre, le groupe a même occupé Uvira, deuxième ville du Sud-Kivu, marquant une escalade majeure aux implications régionales. L’AFC/M23 a encore retiré officiellement ses troupes afin d’instaurer la confiance. Sur le terrain, les effets de ce retrait sur les processus de paix en cours restent incertains. L’occupation a causé d’importants dommages économiques à la ville et a aggravé les tensions intercommunautaires, notamment les menaces visant les Banyamulenge, une communauté tutsie vivant sur les Hauts Plateaux d’Itombwe.
Lors d’une campagne militaire antérieure du mouvement rebelle M23 en 2012 et 2013, plusieurs puissances occidentales et africaines, comme les États-Unis, l’Afrique du Sud et plusieurs membres de l’UE avaient exercé une pression sur Kigali, via des sanctions et des menaces de suspension d’aide, qui a contribué au retrait de ses troupes. Ce type d’action collective multilatérale semble aujourd’hui révolu, malgré certaines sanctions imposées par les États-Unis et l’UE après la prise de Goma par les rebelles AFC/M23 en janvier 2025. La priorité donnée par Trump aux intérêts économiques américains a affaibli la réponse internationale nécessaire pour élaborer et mettre en oeuvre un accord de paix global
L’enjeu central de la rivalité internationale autour de la RDC est l’accès à ses immenses réserves de minerais critiques : coltan, cassitérite, or, lithium dans l’est, ainsi que cuivre et cobalt dans le sud-est.
Cette course mondiale pour l’accès à ces minéraux est motivée non seulement par l’essor de l’IA générative et la transition vers les énergies vertes, mais aussi par le rôle croissant qu’ils jouent dans l’industrie de la défense. Cependant, l’approvisionnement reste incertain, car seuls quelques pays extraient et traitent ces minerais, dont certains sont actuellement en guerre. C’est ce qui explique l’intérêt de Trump pour des accords similaires en Ukraine et en Birmanie.
Pour l’administration Trump, la paix en RDC semble donc moins être une fin en soi qu’un moyen de garantir l’accès à ces ressources stratégiques. Cette politique s’inscrit dans une stratégie plus large de sécurisation des chaînes d’approvisionnement, qui guide également ses investissements. Ces dernières années, le gouvernement américain a ainsi investi massivement dans le corridor ferroviaire de Lobito, destiné à acheminer les minerais vers la côte atlantique, puis vers les marchés américains.
Mépris du droit international
Les motivations géopolitiques et économiques derrière ces efforts sapent leur efficacité, y compris en RDC. Elles illustrent le mépris de Washington pour le droit international, créant un environnement permissif où les violations de l’intégrité territoriale se banalisent. Il n’est pas anodin que l’AFC/M23, soutenu par Kigali, ait pris Goma quelques jours après l’investiture de Trump le 20 janvier 2025. Cela montre que le conflit congolais est à la fois façonné par, et contribue à façonner, un ordre mondial qui s’éloigne des normes juridiques.
Des groupes de la société civile qualifient l’accord négocié par l’administration Trump de « pacte paix contre extraction ». Les factions armées vont plus loin, le présentant comme un signe d’impérialisme américano-rwandais pour justifier leur lutte. Pendant ce temps, la prise d’Uvira par l’AFC/M23 met à mal la crédibilité de Washington comme médiateur.
Quand de telles violations restent impunies, le signal est clair : la vision trumpienne d’une nouvelle Pax Americana est érigée sur des bases fragiles.
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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anastasia Topalidou, Associate Professor in Perinatal Biomechanics and Health Technologies, University of Lancashire
For years, debates about maternity care have centred on how women give birth. But the more important question has always been safety.
Vaginal birth, assisted birth and caesarean section are different clinical routes, not measures of success. The outcome that matters is the wellbeing of both mother and baby, guided by individual risk and informed decision making.
In the wake of maternity investigations, public debate has focused on staffing levels, organisational culture and accountability. These are essential concerns. But there is another, less visible issue. We still do not fully measure or understand what physically happens during childbirth itself.
Labour is one of the most physically demanding processes the human body experiences. It involves coordinated muscle activity, shifting pressure through the pelvis and spine, and joints adapting under intense physiological stress. Yet there are currently no studies directly measuring how labour positions, movement, hands-on techniques and physical forces affect the mother and baby in real time during active labour.
As a result, many positioning strategies are based largely on tradition and accumulated clinical experience rather than direct measurement.
Guidance sometimes suggests certain positions are better than others. But bodies do not behave in one-size-fits-all ways. Research examining upright birthing positions shows there is no single ideal mechanical pattern. The same position can distribute strain differently depending on flexibility, spinal curvature, previous injury and joint mobility.
Despite this complexity, active labour is still not measured biomechanically in real time, while other demanding physical activities have been studied in great detail. Marathon running, for example, has been analysed extensively. Researchers have mapped muscle activity, joint forces and how the body interacts with the ground. Birth has not received the same level of mechanical study.
One of the most common reasons women seek urgent maternity assessment is reduced or absent foetal movement. Yet foetal movement itself is not directly measured.
The main monitoring tool used in pregnancy and labour is cardiotocography, often called CTG. It tracks the baby’s heart rate and the mother’s contractions. It does not capture how the baby moves, such as limb activity, rotation or developing movement patterns. In practice, assessment still relies largely on what the pregnant woman feels and reports.
When someone says, “My baby is not moving normally,” she is describing a change we cannot objectively measure in real time. If detecting change early is central to safe care, this gap matters. When reassurance is given, it is based on the measurements we currently have, but not always the ones we need.
The education gap
Midwives, obstetricians and maternity teams support one of the most physically demanding processes the human body undergoes. Yet formal education in biomechanics is limited. Biomechanics is the study of how forces move through the body, how joints interact and how changing one angle affects another.
Understanding how altering hip position affects the pelvis and spine is not abstract theory. It can influence comfort, pressure on tissues and potentially safety.
Embedding biomechanics into maternity education is not about criticising clinicians. It is about giving them more precise tools and knowledge to support decision making.
Improving maternity safety requires care to be guided by evidence rather than shaped mainly by tradition.
The NHS spends substantial sums each year on maternity-related negligence payments. Investing even a fraction of this in rigorous childbirth research, alongside improvements to staffing and systems, could strengthen the scientific foundation of care and support safer, more personalised decisions.
Behind every statistic is a family living with loss, trauma or unanswered questions. Improving maternity safety is not only about accountability or workforce pressures. It is also about understanding what happens during labour, equipping clinicians with better knowledge and ensuring women’s concerns are supported by reliable tools.
Birth is one of the most significant physical events in human life. It deserves to be studied and understood with the same scientific rigour applied to any other complex medical process.
Anastasia Topalidou received funding from the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (NIHR ARC NWC) for the completion of the scoping review referenced in this article.
Quand le chat, malgré sa liberté légendaire, se heurte à un adversaire aussi têtu que le Code civil, quand un plaignant obtient, outre des dommages et intérêts, le versement d’une astreinte financière de 30 euros chaque fois que le félin domestique de sa voisine entrera dans son jardin, cela donne un jugement qui fait beaucoup jaser médiatiquement, mais qui n’est pas du tout surprenant quand on regarde ce que dit le droit.
Le Code civil n’aime pas les chats parce qu’ils sont indisciplinés, imprévisibles et libres, trois qualités que le droit supporte mal. En revanche, il aime la responsabilité, car elle permet de réparer sans juger.
En l’espèce, une propriétaire de chat vivant dans une maison individuelle laissait son animal circuler librement à l’extérieur. À plusieurs reprises, le chat s’est introduit dans la propriété voisine, où il a causé diverses dégradations, notamment dans le jardin et les aménagements extérieurs. Malgré les démarches amiables entreprises par le voisin pour faire cesser ces intrusions, les passages répétés de l’animal se sont poursuivis.
Estimant subir un préjudice anormal et récurrent, le voisin a alors saisi le tribunal judiciaire compétent. Il reprochait à la propriétaire de ne pas avoir pris les mesures nécessaires pour empêcher son chat de pénétrer sur sa propriété et sollicitait une indemnisation au titre des nuisances et dégradations subies.
Par une ordonnance rendue en janvier 2025, le tribunal de Béziers (Hérault) a fait droit à cette demande. Il a condamné la propriétaire du chat à verser une somme totale de 1 250 euros, comprenant des dommages et intérêts ainsi que des frais de justice. Le juge a également assorti sa décision d’une astreinte financière en cas de nouvelles intrusions de l’animal sur la propriété voisine (soit 30 euros à chaque passage de l’animal chez le voisin), afin d’inciter la propriétaire à prendre des mesures effectives pour y mettre fin. À noter que le voisin avait installé des caméras chez lui pour prouver le passage du chat.
Cette décision, largement relayée dans les médias, a pu surprendre par son montant et par l’idée même qu’un propriétaire puisse être tenu de réparer le comportement d’un chat, animal souvent perçu comme indépendant et difficilement contrôlable. Elle s’inscrit pourtant dans une logique juridique bien établie en droit civil, fondée sur la responsabilité du gardien de l’animal et sur la protection des victimes de troubles anormaux de voisinage.
Explication de la logique juridique
La première clé de compréhension, très pragmatique, est la suivante : le droit civil ne s’intéresse pas à l’intention de l’animal. Il s’intéresse à une question plus terre-à-terre : qui doit réparer le dommage survenu à la suite des intrusions du chat ?
C’est précisément l’objet de la responsabilité civile : remettre la victime du dommage, autant que possible, dans la situation où elle se serait trouvée si le dommage n’avait pas eu lieu. Et c’est là que le chat, malgré son indépendance légendaire, tombe sur un adversaire plus têtu que lui : le Code civil.
En droit civil français, la responsabilité civile est encadrée par les articles 1240 et suivants du code civil. L’article 1243 intéresse particulièrement notre cas. Il énonce la chose suivante :
« Le propriétaire d’un animal, ou celui qui s’en sert, pendant qu’il est à son usage, est responsable du dommage que l’animal a causé, soit que l’animal fût sous sa garde, soit qu’il fût égaré ou échappé. »
Autrement dit le propriétaire dont le chat erre dans le voisinage devra répondre des dégradations commises par ce dernier, qu’importe que cela soit le résultat d’un manque de diligence ou non. Le Code civil est plutôt clair sur la question.
Il en va de même pour les parents responsables de leurs enfants mineurs causant des dégradations ou des instituteurs et artisans qui sont responsables de leurs élèves et apprentis lorsqu’ils sont sous leur surveillance.
Il faut insister sur un point qui explique, à lui seul, le sentiment de « sévérité » que cette affaire peut susciter : la responsabilité du fait des animaux est une responsabilité de plein droit. Concrètement, le voisin n’a pas à démontrer que la propriétaire a été négligente ni qu’elle « aurait pu faire mieux » : il doit surtout établir que l’animal a joué un rôle dans la survenance du dommage et que la personne poursuivie en était le propriétaire ou, plus largement, le gardien. Qu’importe, d’ailleurs, que l’animal viennent une seule fois ou de façon récurrente. À partir du moment où le lien peut être établi avec certitude entre un dommage certain, la venue du chat et le propriétaire, la responsabilité peut être engagée.
Être le gardien d’un chat implique d’être tenu responsable de ses possibles dégradations des biens d’autrui. Fourni par l’auteur
En droit, la notion de « garde » renvoie à l’idée de maîtrise : celui qui a l’usage, le contrôle et la direction de l’animal. Dans l’immense majorité des cas, c’est le propriétaire. Et c’est précisément parce que le chat est un chat (mobile, autonome, parfois fugueur) que le droit choisit une règle simple : la victime ne supporte pas le risque de cette autonomie ; le gardien, si, lorsqu’il est parfaitement identifiable.
À ce stade, le raisonnement est clair, mais l’affaire ne se limite pas à un pot de fleurs renversé. Elle parle aussi de voisinage. En effet, le deuxième fondement utile pour comprendre la décision est la théorie du trouble anormal de voisinage, désormais consacrée dans le Code civil. L’article 1253 dispose que
« Le propriétaire […] qui est à l’origine d’un trouble excédant les inconvénients normaux de voisinage est responsable de plein droit du dommage qui en résulte. »
Dans le langage juridique, « de plein droit » signifie ici que la victime n’a pas à prouver une faute, à condition d’établir l’existence d’un trouble anormal et un lien de causalité entre ce trouble et le chat.
Là encore, la logique est accessible : vivre en société implique d’accepter des désagréments ordinaires. Mais lorsqu’une nuisance dépasse ce qu’on peut raisonnablement tolérer (par sa répétition, sa durée, sa fréquence ou son intensité), le droit ouvre droit à réparation. Dans cette affaire, la répétition des intrusions (et la persistance malgré les démarches amiables) est précisément ce qui fait basculer le dossier du simple incident vers un trouble que le juge peut considérer comme anormal.
Reste enfin une question plus générale, qui explique aussi l’étonnement du public : quel est, au juste, le statut juridique d’un animal ?
Un animal sensible… mais pas responsable au sens du droit
Le droit français reconnaît la singularité de l’animal : l’article 515-14 du Code civil dispose que les animaux sont des êtres vivants doués de sensibilité, tout en précisant qu’ils demeurent soumis au régime des biens (sous réserve des lois qui les protègent).
Autrement dit l’animal n’est pas reconnu comme un bien classique au sens du Code civil, mais il n’est pas non plus un sujet de droit civilement « débiteur » : il ne peut pas, juridiquement, être condamné à indemniser. Le droit civil se tourne donc vers une personne : le gardien, parce que c’est le seul acteur doté d’un patrimoine sur lequel la réparation peut s’exécuter. C’est cette singularité qui permet d’affirmer avec humour que « le droit civil n’aime pas les chats » dans le sens où l’animal, en général, s’est révélé être un des enjeux juridiques de la modernisation du droit civil.
Le statut juridique de l’animal demeure toujours un sujet d’intenses débats, riches également en précédents historiques qui peuvent sembler étonnants, à l’instar des procès des animaux qui ont été rendus du XIIIᵉ au XVIᵉ siècle. Aujourd’hui, les poursuites pénales à l’encontre des animaux ne sont pas possibles puisqu’ils sont dénués de personnalité juridique. C’est un élément auquel il faut cependant faire attention, car certaines personnes défendent aujourd’hui l’octroi d’une personnalité juridique animale.
Une truie et ses porcelets jugés pour le meurtre d’un enfant. Le procès aurait eu lieu en 1457. la mère a été reconnue coupable mais les porcelets ont été acquittés. Wikimédia, CC BY
Au fond, cette affaire en dit moins sur les chats que sur le droit civil : ce dernier ne moralise pas, il œuvre pour la réparation. Le propriétaire d’un animal peut trouver cela injuste, surtout lorsque l’animal échappe en partie à son contrôle. Mais c’est précisément la logique du système : éviter que la victime supporte seule un trouble qu’elle n’a pas choisi. Le droit civil n’a pas de préférence pour les chats ou contre eux. Il a une préférence constante : identifier un responsable et réparer.
Si le chat fauteur de troubles avait été un animal errant sans propriétaire, il aurait été manifestement impossible pour le propriétaire du jardin d’obtenir réparation, en l’absence de gardien identifié du félin. Idem pour les animaux non domestiques qui doivent faire l’objet d’une autre forme de contrôle.
À cet égard, le statut du chat peut troubler. Si le droit le considère comme un animal domestique quand il a un gardien, certains peuvent questionner cette nature. C’est ce que souligne l’historienne des sciences Valérie Chansigaud dans Histoire de la domestication animale (2020), lorsqu’elle rappelle le statut atypique du chat. À la différence de nombreuses races de chiens dont l’aptitude à la chasse s’est trouvée « altérée par la domestication », le chat conserve généralement ses capacités de prédateur. Il peut s’éloigner de son gardien, et il reste « difficile de distinguer morphologiquement » les chats domestiques des chats sauvages. Le chat demeure ainsi, écrit-elle, « une énigme » qui « interroge la notion même de domestication ».
Jordy Bony 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.
Source: The Conversation – France – By Shinichi Sunagawa, Associate Professor at the Department of Biology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
Reef-building coral colonies serve as structured habitats for diverse microbiomes, forming a
hidden reservoir of taxonomic, genetic and chemical diversity (photo supplied by the author).Shinichi Sunagawa, Fourni par l’auteur
For decades, we have thought of coral reefs as the “rainforests of the sea:” vibrant, complex ecosystems full of fish, sponges, and coral. However, our recent findings suggest we’ve been overlooking a crucial part of this picture. By looking beyond the colourful life into the microscopic world, we have uncovered a “hidden chemical universe” that could hold the key to the next generation of life-saving medicines.
Our work, published in Nature, is the result of an international collaborative effort between the Sunagawa, Paoli, and Piel labs, alongside the Tara Ocean Foundation: France’s first foundation to be recognised as promoting public interest in the world’s oceans, founded by Agnès Troublé alias French Fashion designer agnès b. By combining our expertise in marine ecology, microbiology, and biotechnology, we have taken a closer look at corals. Far more than just individual animals, we prefer to think of them as super-organisms: bustling cities where the coral animal provides the living architecture, while trillions of microbes inhabit them, carrying out vital services.
What we found within these microscopic communities was staggering. After analysing 820 samples from 99 coral reefs across the Pacific, we reconstructed the genomes of 645 microbial species living within the corals. The surprise? More than 99% of them were completely new to science. Deciphering their genetic code revealed that these tiny residents are not silent “germs,” but prolific chemical engineers. They harbour a greater variety of biosynthetic blueprints for natural products than has been documented in the entire global open ocean so far.
How we found out
Our discovery didn’t happen in a single laboratory. It began aboard the 118-foot research schooner Tara, designed to withstand Arctic ice. After completing an extensive exploration of plankton across the global ocean, Tara served as our floating laboratory for the Tara Pacific mission. Over several years, our team visited 99 reefs across the Pacific. Life on Tara combined rugged seafaring with high-tech biology: while the crew managed the ship, teams of divers collected coral samples from remote archipelagos thousands of miles apart.
The Tara Expedition and sample-collecting mission’s ship route. tara, Fourni par l’auteur
Back on land, the real detective work began. DNA sequencing at the French National Center of Sequencing (Genoscope) and genome reconstruction using ETH Zurich’s supercomputers allowed us to decode the genetic information from these microbes.
This enabled us to map Pacific coral microbiomes at an unprecedented scale. We found that microbes are highly specific to their coral hosts; each coral species has its own unique microbial fingerprint, shaped over millions of years of evolution.
Why it matters
Most current medical drugs were originally discovered in nature, many from soil bacteria. But we are running out of new “soil” leads, and antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” pose a growing global threat.
Here is where the tiny but mighty “chemical engineers” come in. Within their DNA, these microbes encode Biosynthetic Gene Clusters: instruction manuals for building diverse biochemical molecules, including antibiotics. Because coral-associated microbes live in the highly competitive reef environment, they have evolved sophisticated chemical weapons to defend their hosts or fight rivals. By identifying these Biosynthetic Gene Clusters, we have uncovered a “molecular library” written in a language we are only just beginning to translate. These chemicals may provide solutions to biotechnological challenges and human diseases.
What is next
Our discovery of new microbial species and biochemical diversity in corals is just the beginning. The Tara Pacific expedition studied only a handful of coral species, while at least 1,500 have been described worldwide, highlighting the enormous potential for scientific breakthroughs. But a tragedy is unfolding: as climate change warms the oceans, reefs are dying. When a reef disappears, we don’t just lose a beautiful ecosystem, we witness the “burning” of this library before we’ve had a chance to read the books.
The journey that began on Tara is now a race against time to unlock the secrets contained in the microbiomes of coral and other reef organisms before they are lost forever. Protecting reefs is critical, not only for the environment and the millions of people who directly depend on them, but also for preserving the biological pharmacy that could safeguard human health for generations to come.
Shinichi Sunagawa received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation.
Chris Bowler 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.
When a war ends and peace agreements are signed, most people assume the danger is over. But for many communities around the world the danger remains in the ground, waiting.
Landmines and other explosives left behind after a conflict can stay active for decades – buried in the paths to school, in the fields that feed families and in the areas where children play.
In some countries, such as Laos and the Solomon Islands, bombs from conflicts decades ago still injure and kill.
This quiet danger isn’t a distant problem. Today, at least 57 countries are contaminated by landmines and other explosive ordnance, including mortars and grenades.
At the same time, some governments are stepping back from the Landmine Ban Treaty, the first comprehensive treaty aimed at eliminating landmines in conflicts. Decisions made in parliaments today can translate into hazards underfoot for years to come.
Our new research is aimed at understanding the ongoing risk landmines pose. The study is the world’s largest analysis of landmine and explosive ordnance casualties. And the data allows us to answer critical questions: who dies from these weapons, and why?
What do the numbers tell us?
In our study, we analysed 105,913 casualties across 17 conflict-affected countries, using operational data. These are the real world operational records routinely collected by national mine action authorities, the UN and other humanitarian organisations.
These records let us see what communities are facing without adding any burden to these often stretched services.
Across all settings, the case fatality rate was 38.8%. Put simply: for every ten people injured by landmines or other explosive ordnance around the world, nearly four die. This is extraordinarily high.
For comparison, the fatality rate for blast injuries among military personnel or civilians treated in well-resourced trauma centres is around 2%.
The gap highlights the brutal disparity between those who are injured in environments with functioning surgical and trauma care and those who are not.
Not all explosive threats are equal, either.
Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were the most lethal weapon type in our analysis.
IEDs are increasingly used in many modern conflicts and are often remotely detonated to maximise casualties. Their explosive force and unpredictability cause devastating injuries that many local health systems are simply not equipped to manage.
Who is most affected?
Although most casualties from landmines and explosive ordnance are men, women had significantly higher odds of dying from their injuries. This likely reflects unequal access to health care, delayed treatment, and social barriers that limit mobility and decision making in many conflict-affected settings.
Children’s risks are different – they are both vulnerable and resilient.
Children are particularly at risk of detonating landmines when playing, when caught up in active conflict, or simply as bystanders.
The reason is often tragic.
Children tend to play together in groups, meaning when one child encounters an explosive remnant, several are injured at once.
Yet, overall, children in our data were more likely to survive their injuries than adults, perhaps because they sustain different injury patterns or receive care sooner when adults rush to assist.
But survival is only the beginning. Children may need multiple surgeries, new prostheses as they grow up, long-term rehabilitation and lifelong disability support. These are needs that many health systems struggle to meet.
Age also shapes outcomes. The highest odds of death were observed in adults aged 45–64. Older people may have pre-existing health issues and face greater barriers to reaching medical care, yet their needs can often be overlooked.
The human cost of explosives
The impact of landmines and explosive ordnance extends far beyond immediate injuries. These injuries disrupt people’s daily lives in ways that can entrench communities in poverty.
There are ways to mitigate the impacts of landmines and explosive ordnance, though. This is a preventable public health crisis.
Our findings highlight the urgent need to strengthen emergency, critical and surgical care in conflict-affected areas to reduce preventable deaths.
Reliable pre-hospital care, transport and basic surgical care saves lives. So does long-term rehabilitation and disability support, especially for children who will live with the consequences of these explosive weapons and injuries for decades.
As old conflicts continue and new ones emerge, explosive ordnance keep contaminating the places where people live, play, work and travel.
Understanding who dies, and why, is essential to preventing future deaths and ensuring that peace, when it comes, offers real safety.
Stacey Pizzino received funding from the Australian government Research Training Program.
Michael Waller 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.
When we look up at the night sky and see a satellite glide past, we might not consider climate change or the ozone layer.
Space may feel separate from the environmental systems that sustain life on Earth. But increasingly, the way we build, launch and dispose of satellites is starting to change that.
Over the past few years, the number of satellite launches has skyrocketed. There are now nearly 15,000 active satellites in orbit around the Earth, most of them part of “mega-constellations” in which each satellite has a service life of only a few years.
New satellites must be quickly launched as replacements. To avoid leaving old, dead satellites in Earth’s already-crowded low orbits, most satellite operators deliberately de-orbit them into Earth’s upper atmosphere.
Here, they burn up or break apart into smaller pieces: a process known as “demisability”. In effect, satellites have become part of throwaway culture.
That approach is now being taken to a vastly larger scale. We are concerned about the implications for Earth’s climate and atmosphere.
A sleeper risk for our climate and ozone layer
Last month, SpaceX applied to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for permission to launch one million more satellites for untested “AI data centres”.
That sheer number isn’t the only issue. SpaceX’s Starlink V2 “mini” satellites happen to weigh about 800 kilograms (kg) – roughly the mass of a small car – with later versions expected to reach around 1,250 kg. The planned V3 satellites are larger still, comparable in scale to a Boeing 737 airliner.
Rocket launches already contribute to climate change and ozone depletion. Scaling them up to deploy a million aircraft-sized satellites would push upper-atmosphere heating and ozone loss far beyond previous estimates, with the steady burn-up of dead satellites compounding the impacts.
This comes as burnt satellite dust is already being found in the atmosphere. In 2023, scientists studying aerosols in the upper atmosphere found metals from re-entering spacecraft. Just recently, lithium has been detected from the uncontrolled re-entry of a Falcon 9 rocket.
This is just a fraction of what is to come if planned megaconstellations go ahead – and SpaceX is far from the only player. Other operators worldwide have already asked for a combined total of over one million satellites.
All the while, the full environmental consequences remain poorly understood because satellite builders rarely disclose what their spacecraft are made of.
Scientists assume a large fraction is aluminium, which burns up into alumina particles, but the exact mix of materials – and the size of the particles produced – remains poorly constrained.
But we know the very smallest particles, finer than a human hair, can stay suspended in the atmosphere for years, contributing to ozone depletion and climate change.
Following similar assumptions to a previous study, we estimate that a million satellites could mean that a teragram (one billion kgs) of alumina accumulates in the upper atmosphere – enough, alongside launch emissions, to significantly alter atmospheric chemistry and heating in dramatic ways we do not yet understand.
There is no public mandate for a single company in one country to make changes on that scale to the planet’s atmosphere.
The consequences are not confined to the atmosphere. Not all re-entering satellites burn up; debris is already hitting the ground and the chance of a casualty from megaconstellation re-entries is now about 40% per five-year cycle – rising for both people and aircraft as more satellites are added to orbit.
These pieces of shredded debris, which came from an expendable trunk module attached to one of SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft, fell on farmland in Saskatchewan, Canada, in April 2024. Samantha Lawler, CC BY-NC
In space, the picture is no less stark: the Outer Space Institute’s CRASH Clock suggests a collision would occur within 3.8 days if satellites stopped avoiding each other.
Many experts agree we are in the early stages of the Kessler Syndrome: a cascading chain reaction of collisions that multiplies space debris.
Our skies are not a dumping ground
Our night sky, especially cherished in New Zealand, is one of the few things everyone on Earth still shares.
According to simulations built by astronomers, constellations on the scale proposed by SpaceX would fill the sky with many thousands of satellites visible to the naked eye anywhere on Earth. Eventually, there could be more visible satellites than visible stars.
For scientists, observing the deaths of stars and searching for new planets would become much harder. Stargazing, astrotourism and cultural astronomy would similarly be disrupted worldwide.
All of this means the FCC’s ruling on the SpaceX proposal, now open to public submissions, could affect everyone – whether through changes to the atmosphere, growing collision risks in orbit or the loss of an unspoilt night sky.
One solution being discussed is to dispose of dead satellites in orbits away from Earth. But this would require much more fuel per satellite to escape Earth’s gravity, increasing both payload and the environmental impact of rocket launches. Some debris would still return to Earth.
With SpaceX and others planning rapid expansion, global regulation is needed: in an uncapped system, regulating one firm just shifts the problem elsewhere. As the largest operator, SpaceX is best placed to lead on an environmentally sustainable solution, just as Du Pont did with phasing out CFCs in the 1980s.
A first step is to define a safe atmospheric carrying capacity for satellite launches and re-entries. Environmental assessments should cover the full lifecycle, including atmospheric effects, and address both orbital safety and impacts on cultural and research astronomy.
Whatever the regulatory outcome, using the atmosphere as a crematorium for satellites at this scale cannot be a solution.
Laura Revell receives funding from the Marsden Fund and Rutherford Discovery Fellowships, administered from New Zealand Government funding by the Royal Society Te Apārangi. She is a member of the International Ozone Commission, UN Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, UN Nuclear War Effects Panel, and a lead author on the IPCC’s 7th Assessment Report.
Michele Bannister receives funding from the Rutherford Discovery Fellowships, administered from New Zealand Government funding by the Royal Society Te Apārangi. She is a member of the International Astronomical Union’s Centre for Dark and Quiet Skies.
Samantha Lawler receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. She is a fellow of the Outer Space Institute, and a Visiting Erskine Fellow at the University of Canterbury.
Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Anais Möller, Senior Lecturer and ARC DECRA Fellow, School of Science, Computing and Emerging Technologies, Swinburne University of Technology
When you look up at the night sky, it appears unchanging. But if you look deep enough you will find that the sky is in fact constantly shifting. Satellites, asteroids and interstellar objects pass by. Stars not only shine brightly, they can suddenly burst with energy or explode in bright supernovae.
There is a plethora of explosive and cataclysmic phenomena waiting to be witnessed. For physicists, this is an opportunity to study our universe and physics that we can’t reproduce on Earth.
A whole new era of discovery is opening with the NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory. For the next ten years, Rubin will create a high-definition video of the southern sky, revealing our universe in an unprecedented way. Many of the objects it finds will have never before been seen by human eyes.
More than 20 years in the making
This moment has been more than 20 years in the making, from the concept to completion of the Rubin Observatory.
Located on a dark sky mountaintop in Chile, the observatory represents a generational leap in astronomy with its ultra-wide, deep and high-resolution imaging capabilities.
Rubin has the largest camera ever built, with 3,200 megapixels. Each image scans an area equivalent to 40 full moons. The resolution of the images is so high that if we pointed the camera toward a lime located 24 kilometres away, it would be able to resolve exactly what type of fruit it is.
Last year, Rubin amazed us with its first test images. These images revealed a swarm of new asteroids never before detected, stars varying in our Milky Way and beautiful deep images of galaxies. This is just a taster on what is to come; this week Rubin started publicly sharing hundreds of thousands changing sky objects per night.
The telescope will be uniquely used for the Legacy Survey of Space and Time. This ten-year-long survey aims to solve the biggest mysteries of the universe – and the nature of the physics out there.
Spot the cosmic difference! A new science observation (left) is compared against a reference template built from archival data (centre). Subtracting the two leaves only what has changed, a new source visible in the difference image (right). This is a supernova candidate found with the Fink broker using Vera C. Rubin data. Rubin Observatory/Fink broker
20 billion galaxies
With its advanced imaging capabilities and its systematic scan of the sky, Rubin will image an incredible number of objects in our universe over the next decade.
Starting in our cosmic backyard, our Solar System, it will make 6 million detections of asteroids. Moving toward our galaxy, it will catalogue 17 billion stars. Farther away, it will gather colour images of 20 billion galaxies.
The same patch of the sky will be imaged up to 100 times each year. With an expected 10 terrabytes of image data per night, the amount of data Rubin will deliver in a single year will be greater than all optical observatories combined.
With this data, we aim to answer fundamental questions. These include the nature of the most mysterious components of our universe: dark matter and dark energy.
I am particularly interested in using the data to measure whether the universe expansion maintains a constant acceleration or changes with cosmic time. This accelerated cosmic expansion is attributed to dark energy, which comprises 70% of our universe. Yet we still don’t know what it is.
By itself, this measurement would be amazing, especially since recent observations have hinted the expansion rate may be changing. From the physics point of view, this will allow us to narrow down which potential theories can explain dark energy.
A firehose of cosmic treasures
To find changing sky objects, we compare a new image to an “old” or reference image. The difference between the two images can reveal a new object or a change of brightness.
So how do we find the most interesting exploding stars or asteroids within this mass of detections?
Rubin has selected seven “community brokers”. A broker is both the infrastructure and the team that receives this data firehose within minutes of detection, processes it to find the most exciting objects, and makes them publicly available.
One of these community brokers is Fink, which I have the privilege of co-leading.
Fink is made up of hundreds of scientists and engineers around the world working together to understand our universe. With the incredible Rubin data, comes a great opportunity but also a big challenge.
We need state-of-the-art technologies such as distributed computing (a network of computers, similar to commercial cloud services) and artificial intelligence tools to process the data very fast. We are talking about analysing thousands of detections from Rubin every minute or two, and up to 10 million every night for ten years.
Become a Rubin citizen scientist
You can also engage with Rubin right now.
Rubin’s first images are available online and you can use apps such as Orbitviewer to track asteroids, as well as look at deep images with SkyViewer.
You can also become a Rubin citizen scientist. For example, you can help to identify changing objects in our universe with Rubin Difference Detectives and find comets with Rubin Comet Catchers.
The data from community brokers is also publicly available. Through our Fink portal, you will be able to inspect the latest detections from Rubin just minutes after an image has been taken.
The data may not look like the stunning Rubin first light images. But they come directly from the telescope and are full of universe treasures.
Correction: this article originally stated the Legacy Survey of Space and Time has started. It has been amended to make clear the survey has not yet started but that the Rubin Observatory has started publicly sharing data.
Anais Möller receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the French National Centre for Scientific Research.
Some of the universe’s most extreme explosions leave behind almost no trace. The original explosion is unseen, but our observations can capture the long-lived echo it leaves behind as the shock front ploughs into its surrounding environment.
In new research accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal, we have discovered what may be the clearest example yet of one of these hidden explosions: the radio afterglow of a powerful gamma-ray burst whose initial blast went unnoticed.
The only other viable explanation for what we see is an extraordinarily rare event in which a star is torn apart by an intermediate-mass black hole: a long-hypothesised, elusive class of black holes that has proven difficult to detect.
Either way, we’re watching the slow-motion aftermath of one of the most extreme, rare events the cosmos can produce.
While these jets are launched in all directions, we only observe the small fraction whose emission is directed towards us. When it is directed away from us, the initial flash goes unseen, and all we can observe is the slowly fading afterglow.
Animation of a gamma-ray burst showing the narrow, high-energy jets. NASA
Although these so-called “orphan afterglows” of gamma-ray bursts have been predicted for decades, finding them has proven extraordinarily difficult. Without a high-energy flash to announce their arrival, astronomers have to search thousands of square degrees of sky.
As a result, these cosmic explosions are easy to miss, and hard to recognise when they do appear – until now.
A cosmic ghost appears
Using the Australian SKA Pathfinder (ASKAP), a 36-antenna radio telescope at Inyarrimanha Ilgari Bundara in Western Australia, we scanned vast regions of sky for unexpected long-lived radio transients (astronomical objects that appear and change over weeks to years). We were trying to catch rare events that reveal themselves only through their fading radio emission.
In data from one of these wide-field surveys, we noticed a radio source (named ASKAP J005512-255834), that hadn’t been there before.
It brightened rapidly, releasing 10³² Watts of energy into space – comparable to the total radio energy output of billions of Suns – and then began to fade slowly over time.
Brightening of the radio afterglow detected in the RACS survey with ASKAP. Observations beginning in 2022 capture the source turning on, after which it remains detectable for more than 1,000 days. Emil Lenc
This behaviour immediately set it apart. Most radio transients either evolve quickly or flare repeatedly. This source did neither. Instead, it behaved like the lingering echo of a single, immensely powerful explosion.
Although ASKAP J005512-255834 was bright at radio wavelengths, it left almost no signal at other wavelengths. We could not see a counterpart in visible light or X-rays.
This is exactly what astronomers expect from an orphan afterglow: the fading, widening glow of a tightly focused cosmic jet that was not initially pointed towards Earth, becoming visible only after it slows and spreads.
A busy neighbourhood, billions of light-years away
This rare transient is located in a small but bright galaxy around 1.7 billion light-years from Earth. The galaxy has an irregular structure and is actively forming stars, making it a natural environment for extreme stellar events such as stellar collapse or violent stellar disruption.
The image on the left shows the location of the radio afterglow within the galaxy 2dFGRS TGS143Z140, captured with the Magellan Telescope in Chile. On the right, we see the same radio source detected by the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope in India. Ashna Gulati
The position of the explosion is off to one side, not aligned with the galaxy’s central nucleus. Instead, it appears to lie within a compact star-forming region, possibly a nuclear star cluster.
This raises new questions about what kinds of environments can host such powerful cosmic events.
Could it be something else?
Because ASKAP J005512-255834 is so unusual, we had to do some detective work to figure out what it might be. We carefully examined (and ruled out) some alternative explanations, including stars, pulsars and supernovae.
The only other scenario capable of reproducing the observed radio behaviour involves a star being torn apart by an intermediate-mass black hole. These are a rare class of black holes that sit between stellar remnants and the supermassive giants found in galaxy centres.
Such events are thought to be extremely rare at radio wavelengths, but we cannot completely rule out this explanation. Confirming it would make this the first example of its kind, a discovery just as interesting as an orphan gamma-ray burst.
A hidden universe revealed by radio waves
Was this discovery a stroke of luck, or the first glimpse of a long-hidden population? Until recently, we simply didn’t have the tools to know.
ASKAP J005512-255834 is the most convincing orphan gamma-ray burst afterglow yet identified. It was found by using our radio telescope to search for the long-lived echo of an explosion we didn’t know had occurred.
Using the same approach, we now hope to uncover many more of these orphan afterglows and finally give them a place in our cosmic story.
In doing so, we may be able to build a full picture of the gamma-ray burst population, including those that never announced themselves with a flash, but lingered quietly as ghosts in the radio sky.
Ashna Gulati receives funding from the Australian Research Training Program and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery (OzGrav).
Tara Murphy receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
When a war ends and peace agreements are signed, most people assume the danger is over. But for many communities around the world the danger remains in the ground, waiting.
Landmines and other explosives left behind after a conflict can stay active for decades – buried in the paths to school, in the fields that feed families and in the areas where children play.
In some countries, such as Laos and the Solomon Islands, bombs from conflicts decades ago still injure and kill.
This quiet danger isn’t a distant problem. Today, at least 57 countries are contaminated by landmines and other explosive ordnance, including mortars and grenades.
At the same time, some governments are stepping back from the Landmine Ban Treaty, the first comprehensive treaty aimed at eliminating landmines in conflicts. Decisions made in parliaments today can translate into hazards underfoot for years to come.
Our new research is aimed at understanding the ongoing risk landmines pose. The study is the world’s largest analysis of landmine and explosive ordnance casualties. And the data allows us to answer critical questions: who dies from these weapons, and why?
What do the numbers tell us?
In our study, we analysed 105,913 casualties across 17 conflict-affected countries, using operational data. These are the real world operational records routinely collected by national mine action authorities, the UN and other humanitarian organisations.
These records let us see what communities are facing without adding any burden to these often stretched services.
Across all settings, the case fatality rate was 38.8%. Put simply: for every ten people injured by landmines or other explosive ordnance around the world, nearly four die. This is extraordinarily high.
For comparison, the fatality rate for blast injuries among military personnel or civilians treated in well-resourced trauma centres is around 2%.
The gap highlights the brutal disparity between those who are injured in environments with functioning surgical and trauma care and those who are not.
Not all explosive threats are equal, either.
Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were the most lethal weapon type in our analysis.
IEDs are increasingly used in many modern conflicts and are often remotely detonated to maximise casualties. Their explosive force and unpredictability cause devastating injuries that many local health systems are simply not equipped to manage.
Who is most affected?
Although most casualties from landmines and explosive ordnance are men, women had significantly higher odds of dying from their injuries. This likely reflects unequal access to health care, delayed treatment, and social barriers that limit mobility and decision making in many conflict-affected settings.
Children’s risks are different – they are both vulnerable and resilient.
Children are particularly at risk of detonating landmines when playing, when caught up in active conflict, or simply as bystanders.
The reason is often tragic.
Children tend to play together in groups, meaning when one child encounters an explosive remnant, several are injured at once.
Yet, overall, children in our data were more likely to survive their injuries than adults, perhaps because they sustain different injury patterns or receive care sooner when adults rush to assist.
But survival is only the beginning. Children may need multiple surgeries, new prostheses as they grow up, long-term rehabilitation and lifelong disability support. These are needs that many health systems struggle to meet.
Age also shapes outcomes. The highest odds of death were observed in adults aged 45–64. Older people may have pre-existing health issues and face greater barriers to reaching medical care, yet their needs can often be overlooked.
The human cost of explosives
The impact of landmines and explosive ordnance extends far beyond immediate injuries. These injuries disrupt people’s daily lives in ways that can entrench communities in poverty.
There are ways to mitigate the impacts of landmines and explosive ordnance, though. This is a preventable public health crisis.
Our findings highlight the urgent need to strengthen emergency, critical and surgical care in conflict-affected areas to reduce preventable deaths.
Reliable pre-hospital care, transport and basic surgical care saves lives. So does long-term rehabilitation and disability support, especially for children who will live with the consequences of these explosive weapons and injuries for decades.
As old conflicts continue and new ones emerge, explosive ordnance keep contaminating the places where people live, play, work and travel.
Understanding who dies, and why, is essential to preventing future deaths and ensuring that peace, when it comes, offers real safety.
Stacey Pizzino received funding from the Australian government Research Training Program.
Michael Waller 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.
