Few issues ignite communities more fiercely than what to do with land. The prospect of releasing small portions of green belt land for housing developments, a windfarm proposal or plans for a new road can transform mild-mannered citizens into passionate advocates overnight.
This visceral connection between people and place perfectly illustrates the famous observation that “all politics is local”. In England, the principle that every citizen should be given the opportunity to “have their say” on planning matters is enshrined in law. Before any planning document is adopted, local authorities must give the public the chance to provide feedback.
The logic for this is based on a common-sense morality: before binding decisions are made about how an area might change, the local people who have to live with those decisions should be given the opportunity to endorse or reject that plan.
In practice this is a hugely cumbersome process. Local authorities have to make sense of thousands of comments. This prompted my colleagues and I at the University of Liverpool to begin thinking about how AI could be used to make this process more efficient.
Once a local authority publishes the relevant local planning document, every citizen, company, public, private or third sector organisation has the right to submit a written response. These may address the entire document or focus on a specific issue.
In all cases, the local authority is obliged to collate, comprehend and concisely summarise all public submissions. They will then decide whether the document requires amendments or if further evidence is needed to justify the proposals.
This creates an overwhelming burden for planning departments up and down the country. In high-development areas, submissions often number in the tens of thousands. And individual submissions range from a few sentences to over 100 pages.
Planners must read, absorb and synthesise all this information into a final report which will be used to make a decision. This report must fairly represent the aggregate views across all submissions.
Beyond the sheer volume of responses, human cognitive limitations and biases further complicate the process. Some submissions may be given greater emphasis than others. Recently read submissions are likely to have a greater influence on the reader than those reviewed earlier.
A digital solution
These challenges prompted us to explore alternatives. We partnered with Greater Cambridge Shared Planning – the planning authority for Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils – to develop an AI-powered solution. Our tool, Plan AI, would read and summarise public submissions to the planning process.
In 2025, my colleagues and I conducted a real-world experiment. Three live public consultation exercises were processed in parallel – once by planners and once by Plan AI.
It took a planning officer just over 60 hours in total to download and process 320 submissions. Eighteen hours of this time was used to summarise each submission – a task that took Plan AI only 16 minutes. In that time, the AI tool was also able to create comprehensive reports identifying key themes, referenced sources and geographic analysis of the submissions.
A subsequent qualitative assessment found there to be no discernible difference in the quality of the summaries produced by the human planning officer and those by Plan AI. In fact, the general overview document produced by Plan AI is a significant addition to what would normally be produced. It included a geographic analysis of the origins of submissions – crucial information for planners to understand which communities and demographic groups were participating in the consultation.
Controversial planning proposals can attract tens of thousands of public comments. pjhpix/Shutterstock
The future of planning
The UK government has set out a vision for local authorities to embrace AI for reducing administrative burden and improving the efficiency of government. For example, it recently rolled out an AI tool, developed with Google DeepMind, to digitise planning records.
The implications of experiments like these are far reaching. Planners can focus on their core expertise – assessing applications and supporting government priorities for housing, new towns and infrastructure renewal – rather than spending countless hours processing public comments.
AI can process vast amounts of text more consistently and comprehensively than humans. It can also identify connections between submissions that might otherwise be missed.
With the administrative burden drastically reduced, local authorities could potentially consult citizens more frequently across a wider range of planning issues, making planning even more democratic. Planners freed from paperwork could also dedicate more time to meaningful public engagement.
Of course, one danger with AI is that it could be used on the other side of the consultation, to generate a large volume of submissions in an attempt to over-amplify a particular point of view. However, AI tools could be used to defend against this.
PlanAI or similar programmes can generate an immediate summary of a comment submission, an ideal opportunity to insert a verification check that the submitter is indeed human. Putting the human back in the loop in this way reduces the potential for AI to be used to skew consultations.
By building the right tools and systems, we can create planning processes that are both more efficient and more responsive to citizen input – a win for democracy and effective governance alike.
PlanAI was developed under a paid contract with Greater Cambridge Shared Planning. At the time of publication, it is not sold or marketed to other governments or authorities, but may be so in the future. Alex Lord and the other researchers involved received funding from the UK government’s PropTech initiative and Greater Cambridge Shared Planning.
La Terre s’est formée il y a environ 4,6 milliards d’années, durant l’éon géologique de l’Hadéen. Ce terme tire son origine du dieu grec des enfers et fait référence à la chaleur extrême qui régnait sur la planète à cette époque.
On sait toutefois très peu de choses sur cette première période de l’histoire de la planète, car les roches et les minéraux de cette époque sont extrêmement rares. L’absence d’archives géologiques préservées rend difficile la reconstitution de l’aspect de la Terre au cours de l’Hadéen, ce qui laisse sans réponse de nombreuses questions sur les débuts de son évolution.
Nous faisons partie d’une équipe de recherche qui a confirmé que les roches les plus anciennes connues sur Terre se trouvent dans le Nord-du-Québec. Âgées de plus de quatre milliards d’années, ces roches offrent un aperçu rare et inestimable des origines de notre planète.
Les géologues Jonathan O’Neil et Chris Sole examinent des roches dans le Nord-du-Québec. (H. Rizo), CC BY
Vestiges de l’Hadéen
L’éon de l’Hadéen est la première période de l’échelle des temps géologiques. Il s’étend de la formation de la Terre, il y a 4,6 milliards d’années, jusqu’à il y a environ 4,03 milliards d’années.
Les matériaux terrestres les plus anciens jamais datés par des scientifiques sont des minéraux de zircon extrêmement rares qui ont été découverts en Australie-Occidentale. Ces zircons se sont formés il y a 4,4 milliards d’années et, malgré l’érosion de leur roche hôte, leur durabilité leur a permis d’être préservés.
L’étude de ces minéraux nous a fourni des indices sur l’environnement hadéen ainsi que sur la constitution et l’évolution de la plus vieille croûte terrestre. La composition chimique des zircons semble indiquer qu’ils se sont formés dans des magmas issus de la fonte de sédiments déposés au fond d’un ancien océan. Les zircons seraient donc la preuve d’un refroidissement rapide durant l’Hadéen et de l’apparition précoce d’océans d’eau liquide.
Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.
D’autres travaux de recherche sur les zircons de l’Hadéen suggèrent que la première croûte terrestre était mafique, c’est-à-dire riche en magnésium et en fer. Jusqu’à récemment, l’existence de cette croûte restait à confirmer.
Depuis, l’âge de ces roches, découvertes dans la ceinture de roches vertes de Nuvvuagittuq, suscite controverses et débats scientifiques.
La ceinture de roches vertes de Nuvvuagittuq dans le Nord-du-Québec. (H. Rizo), CC BY
De vieilles roches grosses et solides
La ceinture de roches vertes de Nuvvuagittuq se situe dans la région la plus septentrionale du Québec, au Nunavik, au nord du 55e parallèle. La plupart des roches qui la composent sont des roches volcaniques métamorphisées, riches en magnésium et en fer. Celles qu’on y retrouve en plus grande quantité sont appelées « Ujaraaluk », ce qui signifie « vieille roche grosse et solide » en inuktitut.
L’âge de 4,3 milliards d’années a été proposé après la détection de variations de l’isotope néodyme 142, produit exclusivement pendant l’Hadéen par la désintégration radioactive du samarium 146. Les proportions relatives des isotopes de samarium et de néodyme ont déjà servi à dater des météorites et des roches lunaires, mais avant 2008, cette méthode n’avait jamais été utilisée pour dater des roches terrestres.
Cette interprétation a toutefois été contestée par plusieurs groupes de recherche, dont certains ont étudié des zircons de la ceinture et proposé un âge plus jeune, de 3,78 milliards d’années au maximum, les situant ainsi dans l’éon de l’Archéen.
Origine hadéenne confirmée
À l’été 2017, nous sommes retournés dans la ceinture de Nuvvuagittuq afin d’examiner des roches anciennes de plus près. Cette fois, nous avons collecté des métagabbros, des roches intrusives qui traversent la formation rocheuse d’Ujaraaluk, dans l’espoir d’obtenir des contraintes d’âge indépendantes. Le fait que ces métagabbros soient en intrusion dans les roches Ujaraaluk signifie que ces dernières sont plus anciennes.
Le projet a été mené par Chris Sole, étudiant en maîtrise à l’Université d’Ottawa, qui nous a rejoints sur le terrain. De retour au laboratoire, nous avons collaboré avec le géochronologue français Jean-Louis Paquette. Deux étudiants de premier cycle ont également participé au projet : David Benn (Université d’Ottawa) et Joeli Plakholm (Université de Carleton).
Nous avons combiné nos observations de terrain avec la pétrologie, la géochimie et la géochronologie, puis appliqué deux méthodes indépendantes de datation samarium-néodyme, une technique utilisée pour estimer l’âge absolu des roches magmatiques avant qu’elles ne deviennent des roches métamorphiques. Les deux évaluations ont donné le même résultat : les roches intrusives ont 4,16 milliards d’années.
Coucher de soleil sur la ceinture de roches vertes de Nuvvuagittuq. (H. Rizo), CC BY
Les plus vieilles roches
Comme ces métagabbros traversent la formation d’Ujaraaluk, les roches d’Ujaraaluk doivent être encore plus anciennes, ce qui les place résolument dans l’Hadéen.
L’étude des roches de Nuvvuagittuq, les seules roches de l’Hadéen préservées, offre une occasion unique d’explorer l’histoire la plus ancienne de notre planète. Elles pourraient nous aider à comprendre comment les premiers continents se sont formés et comment et quand l’environnement de la Terre est devenu habitable.
Hanika Rizo reçoit un financement du Conseil de recherches en sciences naturelles et en génie du Canada (CRSNG).
Jonathan O’Neil reçoit un financement du Conseil de recherches en sciences naturelles et en génie du Canada.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Robin R. Murphy, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University
The landscape In the aftermath of a flood makes it challenging to spot victims.AP Photo/Gerald Herbert
For search and rescue, AI is not more accurate than humans, but it is far faster.
Recent successes in applying computer vision and machine learning to drone imagery for rapidly determining building and road damage after hurricanes or shifting wildfire lines suggest that artificial intelligence could be valuable in searching for missing persons after a flood.
Machine learning systems typically take less than one second to scan a high-resolution image from a drone versus one to three minutes for a person. Plus, drones often produce more imagery to view than is humanly possible in the critical first hours of a search when survivors may still be alive.
Unfortunately, today’s AI systems are not up to the task.
We are robotics reseacherswho study the use of drones in disasters. Our experiences searching for victims of flooding and numerous other events show that current implementations of AI fall short.
However, the technology can play a role in searching for flood victims. The key is AI-human collaboration.
Drones have become standard equipment for first responders, but floods pose unique challenges. Eric Smalley, CC BY-ND
AI’s potential
Searching for flood victims is a type of wilderness search and rescue that presents unique challenges. The goal for machine learning scientists is to rank which images have signs of victims and indicate where in those images search-and-rescue personnel should focus. If the responder sees signs of a victim, they pass the GPS location in the image to search teams in the field to check.
The ranking is done by a classifier, which is an algorithm that learns to identify similar instances of objects – cats, cars, trees – from training data in order to recognize those objects in new images. For example, in a search-and-rescue context, a classifier would spot instances of human activity such as garbage or backpacks to pass to wilderness search-and-rescue teams, or even identify the missing person themselves.
A classifier is needed because of the sheer volume of imagery that drones can produce. For example, a single 20-minute flight can produce over 800 high-resolution images. If there are 10 flights – a small number – there would be over 8,000 images. If a responder spends only 10 seconds looking at each image, it would take over 22 hours of effort. Even if the task is divided among a group of “squinters,” humans tend to miss areas of images and show cognitive fatigue.
The ideal solution is an AI system that scans the entire image, prioritizes images that have the strongest signs of victims, and highlights the area of the image for a responder to inspect. It could also decide whether the location should be flagged for special attention by search-and-rescue crews.
Where AI falls short
While this seems to be a perfect opportunity for computer vision and machine learning, modern systems have a high error rate. If the system is programmed to overestimate the number of candidate locations in hopes of not missing any victims, it will likely produce too many false candidates. That would mean overloading squinters or, worse, the search-and-rescue teams, which would have to navigate through debris and muck to check the candidate locations.
Developing computer vision and machine learning systems for finding flood victims is difficult for three reasons.
One is that while existing computer vision systems are certainly capable of identifying people visible in aerial imagery, the visual indicators of a flood victim are often very different compared with those for a lost hiker or fugitive. Flood victims are often obscured, camouflaged, entangled in debris or submerged in water. These visual challenges increase the possibility that existing classifiers will miss victims.
Second, machine learning requires training data, but there are no datasets of aerial imagery where humans are tangled in debris, covered in mud and not in normal postures. This lack also increases the possibility of errors in classification.
Third, many of the drone images often captured by searchers are oblique views, rather than looking straight down. This means the GPS location of a candidate area is not the same as the GPS location of the drone. It is possible to compute the GPS location if the drone’s altitude and camera angle are known, but unfortunately those attributes rarely are. The imprecise GPS location means teams have to spend extra time searching.
How AI can help
Fortunately, with humans and AI working together, search-and-rescue teams can successfully use existing systems to help narrow down and prioritize imagery for further inspection.
In the case of flooding, human remains may be tangled among vegetation and debris. Therefore, a system could identify clumps of debris big enough to contain remains. A common search strategy is to identify the GPS locations of where flotsam has gathered, because victims may be part of these same deposits.
A machine learning algorithm identified piles of debris large enough to contain bodies in an aerial image of a flood aftermath. Center for Robot-Assisted Search and Rescue and University of Maryland
An AI classifier could find debris commonly associated with remains, such as artificial colors and construction debris with straight lines or 90-degree corners. Responders find these signs as they systematically walk the riverbanks and flood plains, but a classifier could help prioritize areas in the first few hours and days, when there may be survivors, and later could confirm that teams didn’t miss any areas of interest as they navigated the difficult landscape on foot.
Robin R. Murphy receives funding from the National Science Foundation. She is affiliated with the Center for Robot-Assisted Search and Rescue.
Thomas Manzini is affiliated with the Center for Robot Assisted Search & Rescue (CRASAR), and his work is funded by the National Science Foundation’s AI Institute for Societal Decision Making (AI-SDM).
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Patrick E. Shea, Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Global Governance, University of Glasgow
The US president, Donald Trump, recently announced that Russia had 50 days to end its war in Ukraine. Otherwise it would face comprehensive secondary sanctions targeting countries that continued trading with Moscow.
On July 15, when describing new measures that would impose 100% tariffs on any country buying Russian exports, Trump warned: “They are very biting. They are very significant. And they are going to be very bad for the countries involved.”
Secondary sanctions do not just target Russia directly, they threaten to cut off access to US markets for any country maintaining trade relationships with Moscow. The economic consequences would affect global supply chains, targeting major economies like China and India that have become Russia’s commercial lifelines.
Despite the dire threats, Moscow’s stock exchange increased by 2.7% immediately following Trump’s announcement. The value of the Russian rouble also strengthened. On a global scale, oil markets appear to have relaxed, suggesting traders see no imminent risks.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
This market reaction coincided with a nonplussed Moscow. While official statements noted that time was needed for Russia to “analyse what was said in Washington”, other statements suggested that the threats would have no effect. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, for example, declared on social media that “Russia didn’t care” about Trump’s threats.
The positive market reaction and lack of panic from Russian officials tell us more than simple scepticism about Trump’s willingness to follow through.
If investors doubted Trump’s credibility, we would expect market indifference, not enthusiasm. Instead, the reaction suggests that financial markets expected a stronger response from the US. As Artyom Nikolayev, an analyst from Invest Era, quipped: “Trump performed below market expectations.”
A reprieve, not a threat
Trump’s threat isn’t just non-credible – the positive market reaction in Russia suggests it is a gift for Moscow. The 50-day ultimatum is seen not as a deadline but as a reprieve, meaning nearly two months of guaranteed inaction from the US.
This will allow Russia more time to press its military advantages in Ukraine without facing new economic pressure. Fifty days is also a long time in American politics, where other crises will almost certainly arise to distract attention from the war.
More importantly, Trump’s threat actively undermines more serious sanctions efforts that were gaining momentum in the US Congress. A bipartisan bill has been advancing a far more severe sanctions package, proposing secondary tariffs of up to 500% and, crucially, severely limiting the president’s ability to waive them.
By launching his own initiative, Trump seized control of the policy agenda. Once the ultimatum was issued, US Senate majority leader John Thune announced that any vote on the tougher sanctions bill would be delayed until after the 50-day period. This effectively pauses a more credible threat facing the Kremlin.
This episode highlights a problem for US attempts to use economic statecraft in international relations. Three factors have combined to undermine the credibility of Trump’s threats.
First, there is Trump’s own track record. Financial markets have become so accustomed to the administration announcing severe tariffs only to delay, water down or abandon them that the jibe “Taco”, short for “Trump always chickens out”, has gained traction in financial circles.
This reputation for failing to stick to threats means that adversaries and markets alike have learned to price in a high probability of backing down.
Second, the administration’s credibility is weakened by a lack of domestic political accountability. Research on democratic credibility in international relations emphasises how domestic constraints – what political scientists call “audience costs” – can paradoxically strengthen a country’s international commitments.
When leaders know they will face political punishment from voters or a legislature for backing down from a threat, their threats gain weight. Yet the general reluctance of Congress to constrain Trump undermines this logic. This signals to adversaries that threats can be made without consequence, eroding their effectiveness.
And third, effective economic coercion requires a robust diplomatic and bureaucratic apparatus to implement and enforce it. The systematic gutting of the State Department and the freezing of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programmes eliminate the diplomatic infrastructure necessary for sustained economic pressure.
Effective sanctions require careful coordination with allies, which the Trump administration has undermined. In addition, effective economic coercion requires planning and credible commitment to enforcement, all of which are impossible without a professional diplomatic corps.
Investors and foreign governments appear to be betting that this combination of presidential inconsistency, a lack of domestic accountability, and a weakened diplomatic apparatus makes any threat more political theatre than genuine economic coercion. The rally in Russian markets was a clear signal that American economic threats are becoming less feared.
Patrick E. Shea 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laudan Nooshin, Professor of Music, School of Communication and Creativity, City St George’s, University of London
One of the first things to greet visitors at the V&A’s new Design and Disability exhibition is a striking blue bench by artist Finnegan Shannon titled, Do You Want Us Here Or Not? This exhibit is a response to the often inadequate seating in museums, which not only acts as a barrier to accessibility for many people, but is more widely symptomatic of ableist approaches to museum and exhibition design.
In this case, the invitation to “Please sit here!” sets the tone for the whole exhibition, which also includes a large sensory map of the layout (located at wheelchair level), a tactile map, and QR codes that link to audio description for blind and partially sighted visitors, and also British Sign Language interpretation.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Aiming to showcase the radical contributions of disabled, deaf and neurodivergent people to design history and contemporary culture from the 1940s until the present, the exhibition goes well beyond this, addressing an impressively wide range of issues around access, disability and exclusion. It also reveals how ableism operates across a range of exclusions, such as race, gender, class and more.
As the introductory notes point out: “Disabled people past and present have challenged and confronted the imbalance of design in society. This exhibition highlights disabled individuals at the heart of design history … It is both a celebration and a call to action.”
While the fight for disability justice goes back many decades – also documented in the exhibition – it’s only relatively recently that questions of access and equality have gone beyond the physical. These include a wide range of issues related to neuro-inclusion and sensory access, including calm spaces and sensory maps that indicate noisy areas.
My own interest in sound in museums has come partly out of research focusing on the role of acoustics in creating accessible spaces, and from my own experience of noise sensitivity conditions hyperacusis and misophonia. Inclusive sonic design seeks to address how sound operates as a factor of social inclusion and exclusion in places like museums.
The V&A exhibition comprises three sections: visibility, tools and living. Visibility focuses on design and art as fundamental tools of activism and includes work created as part of disability justice movements over many decades. This section is a stark reminder of the justice and rights that only come about through extensive struggles.
Tools highlight the extraordinary contribution to design innovation made by disabled people. Living explores stories of disabled people claiming space and imagining the worlds that they want to live in.
Sections two and three both advocate for the social model of disability in which people are rendered disabled by their environment, something that calls for design solutions (as opposed to the medical model in which people are required to navigate and find solutions to their “problem”).
The exhibition draws attention to a wide range of physical and sensory exclusions, both in the displays and the design of the space itself. The in-house design team includes staff with personal experience of disability who also worked closely with external partners living with disability.
There are plenty of exhibits that can be experienced through touch. For partially sighted visitors, there are strong visual contrasts in the wall colours and the edges of displays are lit up. And there are raised edgings on all exhibits for people using a cane – all of which help with navigation.
There are also quiet areas and plenty of seating. Some of these features are already being incorporated into gallery and exhibition design, and hopefully will soon become standard.
I particularly liked the way various issues intersect in the exhibition, in which a range of exclusions are set alongside one another: race, hearing impairment, youth exclusion and stammering, for example.
Other favourites included the B1 Blue Flame rattling football used for blind football, which visitors can pick up, feel, smell, shake and listen to. The Deaf Rave set and Woojer Vest are designed for deaf clubbers and performers and use vibrating tactile discs that amplify sound vibrations.
The beautiful blanket and pillow entitled Public S/Pacing by Helen Statford offers an invitation to rest, drawing attention to “crip time”, accepting “a different pace to non-disabled norms, challenging conventions of productivity, and resting in radical ways that would actually benefit society at large”.
The blanket highlights the failures of the design of public spaces to include disabled people, “challenging ableist assumptions with care and visibility”. The reverse of the blanket has a quotation from Rhiannon Armstrong’s Radical Act of Stopping (2016), embroidered by Poppy Nash.
The exhibition includes many examples of “disability gain” by which design aimed at a particular group of people unintentionally benefits others, too. An example is the smartphone touchscreen, based on technology developed by engineers Wayne Westerman and John Elias as an alternative to the standard keyboard, which Westerman was unable to use due to severe hand pain.
Initially marketed to people with hand disabilities, the technology was later sold to Apple where it revolutionised mobile phone technology.
The final panel of the exhibition is titled Label for Missing Objects, an imaginative and fitting way to mark the continuing story of designing a world that works for “every body and every mind”.
Design and Disability is a rich, thought-provoking and landmark exhibition. Kudos to the V&A, although its importance is so obvious, I wonder why it took this long to host a show dedicated to disabled artists and designers and the wider social impact of their work.
I very much hope there are plans for the exhibition to tour the UK and beyond, and to become a permanent gallery at the V&A, so that it can inform curation and design work in other museums.
Design and Disability at the V&A runs until February 15 2026.
Laudan Nooshin received funding from the AHRC for the project Place-making Through Sound: Designing for Inclusivity and Wellbeing (2023-24).
From your phone to your sponge, your toothbrush to your trolley handle, invisible armies of bacteria are lurking on the everyday objects you touch the most. Most of these microbes are harmless – some even helpful – but under the right conditions, a few can make you seriously ill.
But here’s the catch: some of the dirtiest items in your life are the ones you might least expect.
Here are some of the hidden bacteria magnets in your daily routine, and how simple hygiene tweaks can protect you from infection.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Shopping trolley handles
Shopping trolleys are handled by dozens of people each day, yet they’re rarely sanitised. That makes the handles a prime spot for germs, particularly the kind that spread illness.
One study in the US found that over 70% of shopping carts were contaminated with coliform bacteria, a group that includes strains like E. coli, often linked to faecal contamination. Another study found Klebsiella pneumoniae, Citrobacter freundii and Pseudomonas species on trolleys.
Protect yourself: Always sanitise trolley handles before use, especially since you’ll probably be handling food, your phone or touching your face.
Kitchen sponges
That sponge by your sink? It could be one of the dirtiest items in your home. Sponges are porous, damp and often come into contact with food: ideal conditions for bacteria to thrive.
After just two weeks, a sponge can harbour millions of bacteria, including coliforms linked to faecal contamination, according to the NSF Household Germ Study and research on faecal coliforms.
Protect yourself: Disinfect your sponge weekly by microwaving it, soaking it in vinegar, or running it through the dishwasher. Replace it if it smells – even after cleaning. Use different sponges for different tasks (for example, one for dishes, another for cleaning up after raw meat).
Chopping boards
Chopping boards can trap bacteria in grooves left by knife cuts. Salmonella and E. coli can survive for hours on dry surfaces and pose a risk if boards aren’t cleaned properly.
Protect yourself: Use separate boards for raw meat and vegetables. Wash thoroughly with hot, soapy water, rinse well and dry completely. Replace boards that develop deep grooves.
Tea towels
Reusable kitchen towels quickly become germ magnets. You use them to dry hands, wipe surfaces and clean up spills – often without washing them often enough.
Research shows that E. coli and salmonella can live on cloth towels for hours.
Protect yourself: Use paper towels when possible, or separate cloth towels for different jobs. Wash towels regularly in hot water with bleach or disinfectant.
Mobile phones
Phones go everywhere with us – including bathrooms – and we touch them constantly. Their warmth and frequent handling make them ideal for bacterial contamination.
Research shows phones can carry harmful bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus.
Protect yourself: Avoid using your phone in bathrooms and wash your hands often. Clean it with a slightly damp microfibre cloth and mild soap. Avoid harsh chemicals or direct sprays.
Protect yourself: Store your toothbrush as far from the toilet as possible. Rinse it after each use, let it air-dry upright and replace it every three months – or sooner if worn.
Bathmats
Cloth bathmats absorb water after every shower, creating a warm, damp environment where bacteria and fungi can thrive.
Protect yourself: Hang your bathmat to dry after each use and wash it weekly in hot water. For a more hygienic option, consider switching to a wooden mat or a bath stone: a mat made from diatomaceous earth, which dries quickly and reduces microbial growth by eliminating lingering moisture.
Pet towels and toys
Pet towels and toys stay damp and come into contact with saliva, fur, urine and outdoor bacteria. According to the US national public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pet toys can harbour E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Protect your pet (and yourself): Wash pet towels weekly with hot water and pet-safe detergent. Let toys air dry or use a dryer. Replace worn or damaged toys regularly.
Protect yourself: Bring your own tools to salons or ask how theirs are sterilised. Reputable salons will gladly explain their hygiene practices.
Airport security trays
Airport trays are handled by hundreds of people daily – and rarely cleaned. Research has found high levels of bacteria, including E. coli.
Protect yourself: After security, wash your hands or use sanitiser, especially before eating or touching your face.
Hotel TV remotes
Studies show hotel remote controls can be dirtier than toilet seats. They’re touched by many hands and rarely sanitised.
Common bacteria include E. coli, enterococcus and Staphylococcus aureus, including MRSA, according to research.
Protect yourself: Wipe the remote with antibacterial wipes when you arrive. Some travellers even put it in a plastic bag. Always wash your hands after using shared items.
Bacteria are everywhere, including on the items you use every day. You can’t avoid all germs, and most won’t make you sick. But with a few good habits, such as regular hand washing, cleaning and smart storage, you can help protect yourself and others.
Manal Mohammed 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.
UK chancellor Rachel Reeves would like Britons to invest more in stocks – particularly UK stocks – rather than keep their money in cash. She has even urged the UK finance industry to be less negative about investing and highlight the potential gains as well as the risks.
Stock ownership is important for governments for a variety of reasons. Boosting capital markets can encourage business expansion, job creation and long-term economic growth. It can also give people another source of income in later life, especially as long-term investing can offer greater returns than saving.
But in the UK, excluding workplace pensions, only 23% of people have invested in the stock market, compared to nearly two-thirds in the US. Survey results suggest that American consumers are generally more comfortable with financial risks.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
And it appears that a greater degree of risk translates into closer political engagement. During market shocks driven by US president Donald Trump’s tariff chaos, many Americans tracked headlines – and their portfolios – closely. This contrasts with the UK, where most people keep their savings in safer assets like cash savings accounts or premium bonds.
If Britons are more risk-averse, media coverage that tends to be noisier when markets fall than when they recover may be having an impact. While concerns regarding market volatility may be valid, they can overshadow the long-term benefits of investing.
One key opportunity that many British consumers have missed out on is the rise of low-cost, diversified exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which have made investing more accessible and affordable. An ETF allows investors to buy or sell baskets of shares on an exchange. For example, a FTSE100 ETF gives investors exposure to the UK’s top 100 companies without having to buy each one individually.
This is exactly the kind of long-term, low-cost investing that Reeves appears to be promoting. But should savers be worried about current market volatility – much of it driven by trade tensions and tariff uncertainty? One view, of course, is that volatility is simply part of investing.
But it could also be argued that big shifts within the space of a single month are often exaggerated. People are also likely to be put off by news headlines, which tend to exaggerate the swings in the market.
Examining daily excess returns in the US stock market from November 2024 to April 2025, I plotted cumulative returns (which show how an investment grows over time by adding up past returns) within each month. April 2025 stands out. Despite experiencing several sharp daily losses, the market rebounded swiftly in the days that followed.
This pattern isn’t new. Historically, markets have shown a remarkable ability to recover from short-term shocks. Yet many potential investors could be deterred by alarming headlines that, while factually accurate, often highlight single-day declines without broader context.
The reality is that the stock market is frequently a series of short-lived storms. These are volatile, yes, but often followed by calm and recovery.
Fear and caution
During market downturns, it’s common for people to try to understand why this time is worse or analyse if this crash is more serious than previous ones.
The fear these headlines generate could feed into barriers to long-term investing in the UK. And that’s one of the challenges the chancellor faces in encouraging more Britons to invest.
For those already invested in the stock market, short-term declines are part of the journey. They are risks that can be borne with the understanding that markets tend to recover over time.
My analysis of daily US stock market data since 1926 shows that after sharp daily drops, the market often rebounds quickly (see pie chart below). In fact, more than a quarter of recoveries occur within just a few days.
But this resilience is rarely the focus of media coverage. It’s far more common to see headlines reporting that the market is down than to see follow-ups highlighting how quickly it bounced back.
Research has shown that negative economic information is likely to have a greater impact on public attitudes. For example, a sharp drop in the stock market might dominate front pages, while a steady recovery over the following weeks barely gets a mention. The imbalance reinforces a sense of crisis, even when the broader picture is less bleak.
Markets went on to recover in April 2025… but did the headlines reflect this? David G40/Shutterstock
Unbalanced reporting can distort perceptions, discouraging potential investors who might otherwise benefit from long-term participation in the market. It appears that American perceptions of their finances are also affected by news coverage in a similar way.
Over the long term, the difference between stock market returns and the generally lower returns from government bonds is known as the “equity risk premium puzzle”. Economists have long debated why this gap is so large. Some observers argue it may narrow in the future. But many others, including the chancellor, believe that investing in the stock market remains a beneficial long-term strategy.
If more people are to benefit from long-term investing, it’s vital to tell the full story. That means not just highlighting when markets fall, but following up on how they recover afterwards.
Sam Pybis 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.
Gloomy economic figures have heaped more pressure on the British government and its promise to improve growth. And if that wasn’t enough, there have also been some stark warnings about public finances and the country’s ability to service its debts.
All of this has led to a growing expectation that the UK chancellor Rachel Reeves will have to bring in some significant tax hikes later this year, or reduce government spending.
But both of these options could worsen the long-term economic outlook, by further constraining GDP growth. That was precisely the fate of governments that pursued an agenda of “austerity” – cuts in spending and higher taxes – to tackle the expanded public debt after the financial crisis of 2008.
It was a strategy that ultimately led to higher public debt. Put simply, when governments spend less, GDP tends to fall. And when GDP falls and a country is less productive, tax revenues go down too.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
To make things even more complicated for the chancellor, the UK government has also widened its debt risk by changing its fiscal rules to acknowledge extra financial responsibilities.
This adjustment gave the government more financial assets, including student loans and public pension holdings. But it also meant taking on more liabilities, including the pension schemes it would have to bail out if necessary.
In July 2025, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) identified several other sectors – including universities, housing associations and water companies – whose large debts could become government liabilities in the future.
A bigger balance sheet automatically means more public financial risk. And climate change further raises these risks, the OBR says, by forcing the government to spend more on dealing with environmental damage and eroding fossil-fuel taxes, which still raise around £24 billion for the Treasury.
The OBR is also concerned about the rising cost of pensions for an ageing population. In fact, the UK’s system is not particularly expensive, partly due to its reliance on private pensions (funded by employers and employees).
Yet this reliance brings a different kind of government cost. For these private sector schemes have attempted to insulate themselves against the strains of an ageing population, as more employees retire than join the workforce (and as retirees live longer).
Often this has involved shifting from “defined benefit” plans, which guarantee retirement income, to “defined contribution” plans, where payouts depend on how much members pay in and how well funds are invested.
But that shift has also made it harder for the government to borrow the money it needs for public spending.
Defined benefit funds, seeking a steady long-term return, used to be big buyers of UK government bonds (gilts) – the financial assets that the government sells to raise money. In contrast, defined contribution funds invest mainly in equities (company shares), which promise a higher return on investment that can grow pension pots faster.
UK industrial policy supports this shift from gilts to other assets. It wants pension funds to invest in innovation and infrastructure as a way of stimulating its often mentioned mission of economic growth.
The growth gamble
Yet the move by pensions towards equities is steadily deflating demand for new government bonds. This then forces the government to pay higher interest rates to attract enough buyers, often from overseas.
There is also pressure on the government to relax the “triple lock” on state pensions. This pledge – to raise the basic state pension by at least 2.5% every year, and maintained by all parties since 2011 – is costing around three times as much as was projected at launch, despite fewer pensioners escaping poverty since it was introduced.
Overall, inflation and an ageing population have lifted state spending on pensions to around 5% of GDP.
These pressures all strengthen the view that the government will need another tax-raising budget this year. How else will it pay for its plans for spending on healthcare, housing, infrastructure and defence?
Hopes that a faster-growing economy would narrow the deficit, by boosting tax receipts and reducing spending requirements, have not been fulfilled.
Yet calls for significant tax increases – which could dampen growth – may still be be resisted.
Under pressure, she may well consider a compromise like a “wealth tax” targeting the richest, that would also satisfy the Labour left. Yet the only way to really raise significant extra funds is to increase income tax, VAT or national insurance, which would be extremely risky politically.
But all economic policy comes with risk. And she may end up sticking with her position and putting her (taxpayers’) money on the hope that today’s deficit will eventually be narrowed by faster growth. Relying on more investment to solve economic problems depends on investors trusting the economic stability of the UK, which is a gamble. But it is a gamble the government may still be willing to take.
Alan Shipman has received funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust and the Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas at Austin.
The report is from Community Living Ontario, a non-profit organization that advocates for people who have an intellectual disability. It analyzes the results from a survey of 541 caregivers of students with disabilities about their experiences in Ontario schools.
Seclusion rooms are spaces where students can be kept in isolation and are not permitted to leave. Respondents to the Crisis in the Classroom report detailed incidents such as a student being secluded in a padded room, and a student being isolated in a small, closet-sized room.
While some school boards have developed guidance independently, there is currently no provincial policy on the use of seclusion rooms in Ontario. The Crisis in the Classroom report calls for clear and enforceable provincial regulations and policy around seclusion and restraint.
As an assistant professor of childhood and youth studies whose work examines constructions of the “problem child” and everyday injustices against disabled and racialized children, I believe it is critical for Ontario residents and policymakers to take stock of the negative effects of seclusion rooms and commit to alternatives.
I am unaffiliated with this report, but earlier in my career, I worked as as a one-on-one educational aide for students who attended a special education school that used seclusion.
Defining seclusion rooms
As education researchers Nadine Alice Bartlett and Taylor Floyd Ellis show, there is inconsistent terminology used to describe seclusion in schools, meaning that “the conditions under which such practices may be used in some instances are subjective,” and this “may contribute to a broad interpretation of what is deemed acceptable … in schools.”
As opposed to sensory rooms, which students can usually leave at will and are often designed with sensory tools available for self-regulation (like weighted toys), seclusion rooms serve to isolate or contain students.
In the Crisis in the Classroom report, 155 survey respondents said seclusion was used on their child in the 2022-23 school year, where seclusion means having a locked/blocked door (83 respondents) or being physically prevented from leaving (25 respondents).
Regular, sustained seclusion
Crisis in the Classroom notes that almost half of the students who had experienced seclusion were secluded on a regular basis, and more than 10 per cent were secluded for longer than three hours.
Research shows thatseclusion is often discriminatory along lines of race, class and ability. Reflecting these patterns identified in larger research, the report flags that students had a higher risk for being secluded if they came from households with lower parental education and income levels, and if they were labelled with a behavioural identification or a mild intellectual disability.
More than half of the caregivers surveyed had never given permission for their children to be secluded, and the report includes quotes from caregivers who were never told it was happening.
Response to perceived source of school violence
Seclusion rooms are commonly justified as necessary tools to keep teachers and (other) students safe.
I argue that turning to these alternatives, as the report recommends, is of dire importance. Investigations elsewhererepeatedly find that seclusion rooms are most frequently used for discipline or punishment — not for safety.
With adequate staffing and trauma-informed training, some schools have reduced or eliminated seclusion. (CDC/Unsplash)
This appears in the physical harm (for students and staff) that can occur in the physical restraints often required to force a student into a seclusion room. It also appears in the trauma that can ensue from seclusion (for students and staff) that increases the likelihood of future physical confrontations.
As the Crisis in the Classroom report and repeated exposés illustrate, a lack of policy does not mean seclusion isn’t happening in Ontario. It means seclusion is happening without provincial policy to regulate things like:
Which students can or cannot be secluded, for how long and how often;
What rooms for seclusion must look like and essential safety features;
What data staff must collect about why seclusion rooms are used;
When caregivers must be notified.
Without these guidelines, sometimes no one knows that seclusion is happening — much less in what spaces, for which students and why — beyond the students and school staff who may be traumatized by this practice.
Reports of violence in schools
Crisis in the Classroom notes that teachers’ unions have reported there’s been an increase in violence by students against teachers, often presented in a way that suggests that disabled students are a primary source of this violence. The report acknowledges that the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario has said that students with special education needs have been “chronically under-served by the government.”
News media coverage, the report suggests, “often takes the side of educational staff, and has an unfortunate habit of conflating disability with aggressive behaviour.”
The report points to the dire need to eliminate seclusion and turn towards possibilities that do not increase violence in schools and target disabled students.
The report’s recommendations echo calls from teachers’ unions for appropriate, adequate staffing in schools and increased professional development, especially trauma-informed training, that would support teachers’ work delivering supportive and inclusive education that keeps everyone safe.
And these recommendations make an urgent call for strong and clear policy on seclusion and restraint in Ontario that would severely limit it or eliminate it entirely — and at least track when it’s occurring.
Safer and more humane schools
This devastating report illustrates that we need policy on seclusion in Ontario now to protect everyone in our schools.
More humane practices will keep schools safer for everyone, including teachers and all students, especially students who are still being subjected to seclusion today.
Hunter Knight receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Source: The Conversation – in French – By Christine Dugoin-Clément, Analyste en géopolitique, membre associé au Laboratoire de Recherche IAE Paris – Sorbonne Business School, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, chaire « normes et risques », IAE Paris – Sorbonne Business School
Au-delà de la confrontation militaire, la guerre en Ukraine se déploie dans le domaine numérique et dans l’espace informationnel. Une véritable guerre cognitive est en cours.
Dans le même temps, la Russie ne néglige pas le théâtre national : le premier adjoint du chef de l’administration présidentielle, Sergueï Kirienko, a mis en place le projet dit des « Architectes sociaux », qui lui permet de disposer d’un réseau de technologues politiques à travers toute la Fédération de Russie.
Au niveau international, l’ingérence russe est un outil de conflictualité qui, parce qu’elle cible les prises de décision et les perceptions humaines, est mobilisée au travers de la guerre cognitive qui sert ici les objectifs de guerre russes. L’importance de la guerre cognitive est telle que les Occidentaux qui travaillent à définir des doctrines sur ce sujet.
Si l’on analyse beaucoup les mouvements sur la ligne de front, on souligne moins le fait que, par sa résistance à Moscou, l’Ukraine montre au reste du monde qu’il est possible de s’opposer avec vigueur aux visées du Kremlin, ce qui nuit à l’image d’invincibilité que le Kremlin cherche à projeter. Cette résistance pourrait se résumer en un mot ukrainien : « воля » (volia) qui a le double sens de « volonté » et de « liberté ».
Les attaques informationnelles russes : formater la pensée et bloquer la capacité de décision
On a ainsi pu voir la Russie s’adapter à différentes plates-formes et, notamment, suivre les internautes des unes vers les autres, notamment lors de la migration de nombreux utilisateurs de X vers Bluesky. Les spécialistes russes ont aussi su adopter les nouvelles techniques permises par l’IA, notamment en produisant des deepfakes (ou hypertrucages) très réalistes, ainsi que de nombreux textes destinés à être relayés sur les réseaux sociaux, y compris des contrefaçons d’articles parus sur des sites occidentaux.
Les IA génératives ont également été infiltrées et peuvent, suite à une massification des contenus de désinformation russes incorporés à leurs bases de données, diffuser de la désinformation.
Cette débauche de moyens, dont le coût financier a singulièrement baissé avec le développement de la technologie, a plusieurs finalités qui se regroupent en un objectif général : d’une part, déployer une stratégie du chaos impactant directement le libre arbitre en général ; et, d’autre part, influencer la perception des décideurs afin, selon les cas, qu’ils hésitent à s’opposer aux objectifs du Kremlin ou qu’ils soient confortés dans leur volonté de les soutenir.
Dès lors, ce qui pourra permettre un maintien du libre arbitre et sa manifestation lors des processus électoraux par des votes ne s’alignant pas avec les candidats favorables à Moscou sera un obstacle à la finalité d’influence poursuivie par la Russie. Ce type de tentative d’ingérence a pu être observée à de multiples reprises, même si cela ne doit pas cacher l’existence de votants sensibles aux programmes portés par des partis radicaux pouvant être alignés avec l’approche idéologique du Kremlin.
La stratégie russe ne se contente pas de faire passer des contenus partiellement ou totalement faux pour vrais ; elle instrumentalise également des informations avérées de façon à les présenter sous un jour favorable aux intérêts russes, avant de noyer ses cibles sous une masse d’informations dont il devient difficile de trier le vrai du faux. Résultat : on a pu passer d’une étape visant à faire croire du vrai à une seconde visant à pousser les cibles à ne plus croire en rien.
L’approche informationnelle russe se déploie également sur plusieurs lignes temporelles : elle peut être extrêmement opportuniste et se saisir d’un événement sensible ou clivant pour un groupe social donné, faisant de la Russie un sujet de préoccupation constant pour les services de renseignement, notamment intérieurs. Par ailleurs, en usant d’agents jetables, la Fédération continue de semer le trouble par exemple en participant à faire croire à une montée de dégradations de véhicules commises par des militants écologistes pour attiser le sentiment anti-Verts en Allemagne, mais elle peut aussi travailler sur le temps long pour influencer en profondeur les perceptions du monde des individus et des groupes.
Maintenir la pression sur les élections
Les séquences électorales font l’objet d’une attention particulière de la machine informationnelle russe, qu’il s’agisse de truquer directement les résultats ou de procéder, durant les campagnes, à des ingérences visant à influencer les votes. Ces pratiques sont bien connues, même si elles ne sont pas toujours contrecarrées.
Ces « pseudo-observateurs » sont recrutés dans différents pays, y compris des États membres de l’UE. En ce sens, ils profitent de la légitimité accordée par le grand public à ces missions d’observation électorale souvent mal connues. Ces organisations de fausses observations électorales ont notamment pu être observées en Géorgie pendant les législatives de 2024.
« Volia » : un concept à l’opposé de l’influence russe
C’est ici que l’Ukraine prend une importance capitale dans la guerre informationnelle. Le pays a fait le choix d’adhérer à un modèle de société européen, dépeint par Moscou comme « décadent » en comparaison du sien – lequel est supposé protéger les « valeurs traditionnelles », mais aussi incarner l’ordre, à l’opposé du chaos qui serait la marque de fabrique des Européens. L’Ukraine paie le prix du sang, depuis maintenant plus de trois ans, pour avoir refusé d’adhérer au monde russe « Russkyi Mir », concept polymorphe qui se décline en des dimensions géopolitique, idéologique et sociétale.
Aux yeux de Moscou, remettre l’Ukraine au pas permettrait de prouver la supériorité du modèle russe. La russification opérée dans les territoires occupés a pour finalité de donner l’impression que ces populations sont heureuses de faire partie de la Russie et donc d’adhérer à ce même modèle. Ce supposé engouement serait la preuve de l’attrait du modèle social russe et soutiendrait la proposition selon laquelle Moscou peut représenter une alternative crédible au modèle occidental dans son ensemble. Devenir une alternative crédible permet à Moscou de prendre du poids au niveau international et de remettre en cause les règles de droit international qu’elle ne respecte pas et qu’elle aimerait voir changer, notamment au sein des instances internationales.
L’Ukraine pose un problème de nature ontologique, si l’on s’attache à une approche conceptuelle de l’ingérence russe. Ce problème se résume en un petit mot, « volia ». En ukrainien, ce mot à un double sens. Il signifie tout à la fois « volonté » et « liberté », la volonté ne pouvant s’entendre que comme libre, ne nécessitant pas de le préciser comme dans la notion de libre arbitre. Ce concept vient en opposition à la volonté de maîtrise et d’influence russe sur l’Ukraine.
La volonté russe de nier l’existence de l’Ukraine répond donc à des considérations multiples : imposer un choix de société que l’on présentera aux opinions des pays africains mais aussi du Moyen-Orient comme étant plus séduisant que le modèle occidental et européen ; participer à changer les règles du droit international ; et réaliser une projection de puissance en s’appuyant sur la force militaire, ce qui permettra de faire oublier que la Russie aura buté sur l’invasion de l’Ukraine pendant – au moins – plus de trois ans.
Une guerre cognitive
Le terme de « guerre hybride », bien que faisant débat dans la communauté académique, a été largement utilisé depuis le début de la guerre dans le Donbass en 2014. Ce concept s’appuie notamment sur des écrits de Franck Hoffman, datant de 2007, qui décrivaient alors les méthodes employées par Israël lors de la guerre du Liban en 2006.
Plus récemment, la notion de « guerre cognitive » a refait surface pour décrire les nouvelles modalités de la conflictualité moderne, mêlant guerre traditionnelle et actions informationnelles mais aussi économiques visant à affaiblir un adversaire pendant, et même avant le déclenchement de l’affrontement cinétique – ce qui ne va pas sans rappeler le fameux Art de la guerre, de Sun Tzu, qui affirmait qu’il était possible de gagner le combat avant même de le mener.
Là encore, le concept de guerre cognitive a fait l’objet de multiples débats. Au cours des années, il a été employé pour désigner divers types d’actions, incluant aussi bien les opérations psychologiques, ou PsyOps renommées Military Information Support Operations (MISO) à l’Ouest, quand on parlait plus volontiers de mesures actives à l’Est, ces dernières s’appuyant sur la fameuse Maskirovka, c’est-à-dire l’art de la duperie russe, puis sur les théories du contrôle réflexif.
In fine, on parle en Russie de « guerre non linéaire » qui consiste à mêler moyens miliaires et non militaires pour atteindre les objectifs. Lors d’un discours prononcé devant l’Académie des sciences militaires en 2019, Sergueï Choïgou, alors ministre de la défense, affirmera même la primauté des mesures non militaires sur la puissance militaire.
La guerre cognitive reste un concept flou pour les Occidentaux, qui le définissent, au sein de l’Otan, comme « des activités menées en synchronisation avec d’autres instruments de puissance, afin d’influer sur les attitudes et les comportements, en influençant, en protégeant ou en perturbant la cognition d’un individu, d’un groupe ou d’une population, afin d’obtenir un avantage sur un adversaire ».
La Russie semble le comprendre de manière encore globale et ontologique : ses opérations informationnelles visent différents niveaux de la société (allant de l’individu aux différents types de groupes), mais également différents niveaux d’activité humaine (économiques, politiques, sociétaux, culturels, etc.).
L’exemple des étoiles de David peintes sur les murs de Paris peu après les attaques du 7 octobre 2023 par des ressortissants moldaves engagés par les services russes en fournit une bonne illustration. Ces agents sont qualifiés de « jetables » car ils sont recrutés et payés pour l’occasion afin de réaliser des actions simples dans le monde physique en n’ayant que peu, voire pas, d’attache avec le Kremlin. Cette action était ensuite facile à utiliser dans la sphère informationnelle et à amplifier numériquement. De plus, des personnes de bonne foi pouvaient observer ces graffitis, bien réels, ce qui donnait une crédibilité et une existence à une action pourtant créée de toutes pièces afin de déstabiliser la société française.
La guerre cognitive est aujourd’hui un concept encore en cours de définition. Si elle implique l’usage de stratégies destinées à mener des attaques sur les cognitions humaines, elle ne peut cependant se limiter à cette approche. Elle doit être pensée dans une perspective plus vaste, d’ordre ontologique. Cela suppose de prendre en compte les domaines dans lesquels ses actions peuvent se déployer, et les fondements sur lesquels elle s’appuie. L’objectif de ces actions est de perturber, de détourner, voire de tordre la prise de décision – un processus qui, par essence, devrait rester libre, comme le suggère le terme « volia ».
Christine Dugoin-Clément 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.
