France, Spain, Belgium, Albania, Brazil, Serbia, India, Nepal, Bangladesh…

By Michael Albert

October 20, 2026

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Image by Fyrtaarn/Wikimediacommons, licensed via CC BY 4.0

Reports show activism of many minds, addressing many topics and reaching considerable scale erupting in many places. Education, housing, corruption, jobs, prices, immigration, regimentation, fascism, war, data centers, weather, electoral campaigns, and more. France, Spain, Belgium, Albania, Brazil, Serbia, India, Nepal, Bangladesh, and more. 

What to do? On the one hand, where you are, if it arrives, participate. If it hasn’t yet arrived, try to initiate it. So far, so obvious. But a larger, overarching possibility beckons. Spread the eruption. Enlarge each outbreak. Make it all last. Still obvious. But how?

What can turn a temporary eruption that may or may not win some specific immediately focused local aims into a sustained wave of activism that grows, persists and finally wins not only various initially sought aims, but whole new societies in a revolutionized world? Isn’t that the strategic question we must now address?

Without persistence we win some gains, but not many. We go a ways, but not far. To achieve more we must expand our efforts from upsurge to persistence. From single issue to multi issue. From public policy to systemic structure. And from shocking on-lookers to rousing and welcoming them. Upsurge alone may win some gains but it will not reach the causal core of society’s problems or potentials. 

To upsurge is not bad. Upsurges spread activism. To address a pressing issue is not bad. To address pressing issues inspires involvement and grows commitment. To overturn horrible public policy is not bad. To overturn public policies alleviates pain and teaches tactics. All of that counters passivity and fuels momentary hope. But significant victory requires sustained participation. To overturn the causes of contemporary suffering and attain preferred positive alternatives requires contagious persistent commitment. 

But how can we exceed our moment’s justified passions? How can initial narrowness reach out broadly? How can narrow focus diversify greatly? How can limited commitment deepen humanely? How can we develop sufficient coherence to confront and overturn existing institutions? How can we seek and finally implement a just, liberatory, self-managed future? 

For French high school students to demand equitable education is excellent. When they and their teachers and wider circles of workers and unions demand books not bombs, and then affordability for all, it makes critical connections that take resistance another step forward. When Spaniards add to demanding affordable housing, demanding quality education, it also takes a step forward. And when masses of neighborhood resisters add to ending corruption their desires to attain participatory democracy, or when union resisters add to preserving jobs desires to establish self-managed workers councils, or when consumer resisters add to attaining affordability desires to conceive and ultimately implement participatory planning, or when citizen resisters add to blocking fascism desires to enlarge participation, or everyone adds to ending war desires to wage peace, or adds to stopping data centers desires to develop people centers, or adds to ending fossil fuels desires to establish environmental justice, or adds to electoral campaigning desires to reconstruct governance, all that takes essential steps forward.

But beyond diversifying, what can sustain upsurge? How does to briefly seek single issue public policy gains become to persistently seek multi-issue systemic institutional gains? If we don’t explore how movement enrichment can come about, how will we sensibly bring it about? Strategy can’t usefully be an afterthought of the decision to leave school, leave work, or leave home to go wild in the streets. Strategy has to propose flexible agendas—what to demand, what to close down, what to assemble. It has to conceive agendas for us to continually refine, correct, and implement in light of lessons we cull from experience. Whatever attracts more support, more participants, we do that. Whatever doesn’t. We reject that.

Okay, but what features must a sustained multi-issue movement have that a single or even multi-issue upsurge needs to attain? How can those who desire fundamental change contribute to attaining those needed features?

Persistent movements have participants who become driven by more than provocative slogans and desires. By more than anger and energy. Persistent movements have members whose wants grow beyond their initial passions. The mood and even the psychology of persistent movements’ members alters from short-term immediate spontaneous demonstrations to long-term carefully pursued plans. Activists’ moods rise beyond living to earn or living to survive, to living to win. Moods becomes confident but also careful, militant but also welcoming. Movements become alert to their implications. Indeed, persistent movements continuously calculate consequences. They pursue what will enlarge their numbers, deepen their commitment, and enrich their aims. They combine outreach with lasting organizational structure. They reject actions, words, or deeds that repel constituencies they need to attract. They pursue what will abet winning and reject what will obstruct winning.

Upsurges happen when something that typically differs each time it appears—sometimes it may be masses volunteering, other times it may be masses rioting—ignites angry pain many others feel into positive demands for real gains. When something in whatever shape it emerges turns resigned acceptance of horrid, grim conditions to reasoned hope that strategic actions can and will yield better conditions. But to become sustained, strategic, and revolutionary requires more than a surge.

Upsurge is in the air, more here, less there, to be sure—but if you look, you can see it happening or ready to happen there and here too, and maybe even all over. Will upsurge grow into sustained, collective, strategic commitment that persists until it achieves fundamental change? Upsurge is exciting. Upsurge is even wonderful. But its final grade depends on its consequences.

I am 79. I was lucky to have participated in an earlier upsurge called the Sixties. It was heroic. It was solidaritous. It was passionate. It even spanned years. It won a lot but not fundamental change. We were insufficiently visionary for that. We were insufficiently strategic for that. We tried, but in the end, we did not win that. Ours was of course not the first upsurge that fell short or got waylaid. And there were more, too, between then and now. We lose, we lose, we lose, but when we learn sufficiently, we will win.

I have always abhorred apocalyptic politics. But the simple fact is, the time has come to learn, to organize, and to fight until we win another world that is possible. 

And here, where I live perhaps close your eyes, open your mind, and listen to Leonard Cohen:

It’s coming to America first, 

the cradle of the best and of the worst. 

It’s here they got the range 

and the machinery for change 

and it’s here they got the spiritual thirst. 

It’s here the family’s broken 

and it’s here the lonely say 

that the heart has got to open 

in a fundamental way: 

Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Or if you prefer, listen to young Bobby:

Oh, the foes will rise

With the sleep still in their eyes

And they’ll jerk from their beds and think they’re dreamin’

But they’ll pinch themselves and squeal

And know that it’s for real

The hour when the ship comes in

Then they’ll raise their hands

Sayin’ we’ll meet all your demands

But we’ll shout from the bow your days are numbered

And like Pharaoh’s tribe

They’ll be drownded in the tide

And like Goliath, they’ll be conquered

Michael Albert

Michael Albert`s radicalization occurred during the 1960s. His political involvements, starting then and continuing to the present, have ranged from local, regional, and national organizing projects and campaigns to co-founding South End Press, Z Magazine, the Z Media Institute, and ZNet, and to working on all these projects, writing for various publications and publishers, giving public talks, etc. His personal interests, outside the political realm, focus on general science reading (with an emphasis on physics, math, and matters of evolution and cognitive science), computers, mystery and thriller/adventure novels, sea kayaking, and the more sedentary but no less challenging game of GO. Albert is the author of 21 books which include: No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World; Fanfare for the Future; Remembering Tomorrow; Realizing Hope; and Parecon: Life After Capitalism. Michael is currently host of the podcast Revolution Z and is a Friend of ZNetwork.

 

Lula and Bolsonaro trade insults in TV debate ahead of weekend presidential runoff

By João Azevedo & Gavin Blackburn

Published on 19/10/2026 EURONEWS

Corruption is a top concern for many Brazilian voters ahead of the weekend runoff vote but experts say its greatest impact may not be on which candidates voters choose, but on whether they decide to sit out of the election altogether.

Firing off personal attacks, Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and right-wing senator Flávio Bolsonaro held an acrimonious first debate on Sunday, a week before a tight presidential election runoff

A chaotic exchange between the two men, who called each other liars on multiple occasions, accusing each other of corruption and dragging up various scandals, encapsulated the tone of a bitter election campaign in the deeply polarised nation.

Bolsonaro, 45, son of the far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro, secured a shock first-round lead over Lula earlier this month and polls predict a close battle for the runoff on 25 October.

The two men sparred over the economy, public security, healthcare, corruption and Brazil's ties to the United States.

"Brazil is going to retire you," fired off Bolsonaro, seeking to unnerve his adversary by pacing up and down behind him throughout the debate in view of the camera, shaking his head, smirking and scoffing while his adversary spoke.

Lula called Bolsonaro "a habitual liar, a thug," and said he did not want to stand close to a "militiaman," alluding to his alleged ties to Rio de Janeiro's paramilitary groups.

Flávio Bolsonaro and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva during a televised presidential debate in São Paulo, 18 October, 2026 AP Photo

Bolsonaro, who made several jabs about Lula's time jailed for corruption on charges that were later annulled, retorted that it was better he stay at a distance "because my wallet could be stolen."

Lula, who at almost 81 is seeking a fourth term in power, battled to control his irritation at times and repeatedly asked viewers to "look it up on Google" to prove his adversary was lying.

While Bolsonaro has led in polls since the first round, his edge slightly narrowed in two polls this week which showed him with 51% of voting intentions compared to 49% for Lula.

'Subservient' to US interests

Bolsonaro hammered away at the primary concerns of Brazilians, such as the cost of living and insecurity, and accused Lula of "reckless spending to get re-elected" due to various social measures he has announced while campaigning.

Lula countered by asking Bolsonaro about his plans to emulate the drastic "chainsaw" cuts to public spending implemented by Argentina's libertarian President Javier Milei, which led to higher unemployment and cuts to benefits.

Throughout the debate, Bolsonaro dodged the question and pivoted to different topics.

Lula questioned the right winger's his ties to US President Donald Trump, an ally of the Bolsonaro family, and plans to "hand over" Brazil's rare earth minerals.

Opposition presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro holds a campaign rally one week before the presidential election runoff in São Paulo, 18 October, 2026 AP Photo

"It is striking how the Bolsonaro family is subservient to American interests," said Lula.

Former president Jair Bolsonaro came up several times, including when his son asked Lula why so many prisoners had supported him in the election.

Lula said he wanted all of their votes, including that of Jair Bolsonaro, who is currently serving a 27-year sentence under house arrest for a botched coup bid after his failed 2022 re-election bid.

"Vote for me, Bolsonaro, you know your son, you know I'm better than him."

Top concern

Corruption is a top concern for many Brazilian voters ahead of the weekend runoff vote but experts say its greatest impact may not be on which candidates voters choose, but on whether they decide to sit out of the election altogether.

In the minds of many Brazilians, both candidates are associated with graft and for those who strongly support either candidate, such alleged ties will do little to curb their enthusiasm.

Supporters of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva during a rally in Rio de Janeiro, 18 October, 2026 AP Photo

But experts say that a generalised perception of corruption can increase abstention and anti-incumbency sentiment, potentially benefiting Bolsonaro, who received 2.2 million more votes than Lula in the first round.

During the first round, many lined up to cast their votes wearing either red hats and T-shirts — signalling support for Lula’s party — or the yellow and green of the Brazilian flag adopted by Bolsonaro’s movement, reflecting the polarisation gripping the country.

Supporters of Bolsonaro and Lula are highly distrustful of the other side and view their opponents as a threat. Such voters are less likely to give weight to allegations of corruption, experts say.

“We have a great ability to filter information that goes against our beliefs,” said Nara Pavão, a political science professor at the Federal University of Pernambuco. “People don’t want to discover the truth about their candidates, they want to beat the opponent.”

Relate

Camila Tobji de Aquino, a 19-year-old student of pedagogy and psychology, thinks that corruption is a cross-partisan issue and a significant problem in Brazil.

But her main concern is what she sees as the threat Flávio Bolsonaro poses to democracy.

“If I were to vote only for a candidate not tied to any corruption, I would vote blank,” she said. “But that’s not the choice Brazil is facing. For me it’s a question of being able to vote in the next election.”

A manual for how the left can fail to agree

By Alberto Garzón

Published 18 October, 2026

First published at Ecosocialist Notebook.

When I stepped back from frontline politics three years ago, I was invited to write a book about what I saw as one of the most intense political decades in Spain’s history: from the 15-M protests to the Spanish government. Many of my comrades who had left before me, and even many who are still active, had ventured into this kind of political literature with similar books. In most cases, however, these were not only personal accounts of what had happened, with their legitimate biases and particular points of view, but also brutal settling of scores. I dislike that approach because I don’t believe more detailed knowledge of what is usually called “dirty laundry” would do any good for the country, the left, or the working class. For that reason I turned the project down.

I mention this because I think I understand why the Spanish left is finding it so hard to reach agreement at such a crucial moment. In theory it shouldn’t be so complicated. Most of the parties that make up the left share 90% of their political programme, so if, as Julio Anguita used to say, we stick to that criterion, agreement ought to be relatively easy. If, in practice, it isn’t, it is because other factors come into play, factors that make what looks easy far more complex.

The main distorting factor, as obvious as it may sound, is that people make politics. And we are all prisoners of both our virtues and our vices, including needs such as recognition, identity, respect, material livelihood, and social relationships… In short, human beings are complicated creatures. Even when we come together as people who, like us, want to change the world, and even when we share almost the entire worldview and plans for the future, seemingly insurmountable differences end up emerging one way or another.

The political world I have experienced is full of episodes that are, strictly speaking, completely absurd. People so ideologically close that they become couples and start families, only to separate over time and end up disagreeing politically about everything down to the colour of the doors. People who, with enviable assertiveness, say one thing today that becomes its opposite tomorrow, and the day after that, if need be, changes again. People who take a position only after the debate is over, always guided by the question “which of us won?”. People who started out as friends and comrades but, as things evolve, become the ones who deny ever having said hello to you. In short, situations of political divergence that might fall under the labels of cynicism and hypocrisy, but that at their core express something deeper: the social inertia of complex human beings.

Actually existing politics is a meat grinder for people, so it is hardly surprising that those who know how things work refuse to take on new responsibilities. Others are braver, or more reckless, and take on impossible challenges even knowing the costs are high. It was never easy, and in other times doing politics meant far graver things such as torture or murder, but we cannot deny that the last fifteen years have been a centrifuge for human beings. Just as quickly as politics became an attraction and a source of hope for tens of thousands of people, drawing many of the best minds in this country to the front line, it also soon became a human-grinding machine that wore down and expelled all that raw material and its original freshness.

When I entered institutional politics in 2011, as someone raised in the republican and socialist tradition, I deeply distrusted leadership: “neither in gods, kings nor tribunes lies the supreme saviour,” says one of the most influential texts in political history. But when push comes to shove, I’m afraid someone is needed to bring some sanity, serenity and calm to the chaotic world of flesh-and-blood humans. Someone who, perhaps through charisma or intelligence, knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff and keep the focus on what really matters. Someone with enough emotional and political intelligence to rise above human pettiness while bringing out human virtues. That, for me, is the main function of a leader, and the left is fortunate to have many people who fit that profile. The problem is that almost nobody wants to waste part of their life on such a toxic and thankless task.

People often say leaders and parties are to blame for all of this. But let us admit the problem doesn't lie only with the leaders. It also lies with us, because we all participate, one way or another, in the incentives that make the atmosphere unbearable. With our pettiness, we don’t let the grass grow. From the comments on social media, completely vampirised by hatred and brutality, the toxic atmosphere starts from below. Like any other leader, I became a candidate already hated by a considerable part of the electorate and even by my own people, before I had even opened my mouth. And that was before social media existed in its current form, that is, as a megaphone for the darkest passions. If that happens just for arriving, there’s no need to dwell on what happens when, like all human beings, we make mistakes. Be that as it may, on the left, and perhaps just as elsewhere, we tear each other apart first and only afterwards, if at all, reflect on why.

These days, with so many rumours circulating about how to put together a Frente Amplio (Broad Front) ticket, it is not easy to find someone with a brilliant idea, but it is very easy to find thousands of people with destructive criticism of every possibility: he or she would be the worst candidate in the world and I won’t vote if that goes ahead; that one said such-and-such a hundred years ago and for me that’s a red line; that other one is even worse because he’s spineless or, worse still, a traitor for not insulting the bad guys enough; but this one here is almost worse, because he’s not from my party; and so on. And it isn’t only those who are active and putting themselves on the line who take the hits. My latest social media “flame” (read: public lynching) came from members and leaders of Adelante Andalucía, who didn’t like me pointing out that the electoral law penalises fragmentation. Even though I was their comrade until a few years ago, even though we campaigned together many times and I have never had a bad word for them, it didn’t matter: the backlash was as passionate as it was disproportionate. The kind anyone would unleash against an enemy to be defeated. Perhaps even more so.

It would be foolish to think that all this is just basic psychology. The left wants to transform social structures, but it often refuses to acknowledge that its own organisations are shot through with the same power relations, material incentives and identities it seeks to transform. For example, people have to make ends meet, and, believe it or not, so do people on the left; ideological affinities are intertwined with our livelihoods. If my party says it’s raining, even if I can see a perfectly clear sky through the window, it may be inconvenient to acknowledge that contradiction, and it may be in my interest to overact and insist that the storm is about to break. We used to call them “traffic lights”: people who switch to amber when it’s still unclear who will win (which means choosing who will allow them to keep earning a living), and whose political sense of smell is so finely tuned that when they turn green, backing someone or something, you know there’s no better poll. This keeps the same profiles in place and reproduces practices that distort any honest debate. And another day, if the occasion arises, we can talk about the incentives facing insiders who have, moreover, spent their lives in a socially penalised activity (because your CV says you’re the company’s next subversive) when it comes to leaving politics and, imagine the whim, continuing to earn a living.

Material ties are not the only ones that bind parties to their leaders and members. An emotional or symbolic bond also exists, which, like every identity, arouses as much passion as a romantic relationship, or more. One can understand that a lifelong activist who has devoted decades to a cause embodied in a logo or an acronym feels an attachment to their party and its symbols that goes beyond the rational. But we also see the same thing among people who have only just joined a party, or in parties still in their cradle. Party patriotism takes root quickly, but it introduces dynamics that have nothing to do with the tidy rationality of the programme Julio Anguita spoke of. They have more to do, obviously, with the irrational drive that every nationalism awakens, even when it is disguised in party rhetoric. And, needless to say, all of this is a first-order obstacle to getting different people to agree, people who bring very different identities, experiences, and relationships from home.

Be that as it may, even if we addressed and resolved all of the above, and we are still a long way from that, the substantive debate would remain: what to do when your cards are so few and the barbarians are at the gates. After all this time, I have reached a practical conclusion: whatever Frente Amplio decides, I will support it. I will keep my insider comments to myself, and I will humbly help support the people who are there, the ones who have been brave enough to put themselves on the line for all of us at such a difficult time. That matters far more for the country than reading or listening to the left-wing activist who knows everything and who, above all, has a magic idea and a problem for every solution.

 

Contact with nature is linked to healthy eating

Study is first to find connection between intuitive eating and natural environments

Anglia Ruskin Universit

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

A new study has discovered that contact with natural environments may help people develop healthier eating habits.

Led by Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) and published in the journal Body Image, this is the first research to provide evidence that exposure to nature can influence people’s relationship with food.

The study involved 500 UK adults who were assessed on their individual levels of contact with the natural world, such as how much they noticed nature in their everyday lives, as well as the frequency and duration of the time spent in natural environments.

The participants also completed surveys measuring body image, self-compassion, connectedness to nature and intuitive eating, which is an anti-dieting approach to eating that focuses on listening to the body’s internal signals instead of following strict eating rules.

The study found a direct positive relationship between nature contact and intuitive eating, but pathways involving other factors were even more important.

One pathway involved nature contact influencing intuitive eating habits through higher levels of body appreciation. It is thought that nature contact helps people feel more comfortable in their body, more appreciative of what their body can do and more responsive to their body’s needs, which in turn leads to higher levels of intuitive eating.

A second pathway involved self-compassion. Greater nature contact promotes self-compassion and the researchers believe this provides a buffer against responding to difficult thoughts and emotions through impulsive eating. Instead, it may encourage people to follow their body’s signals and choose foods that better meet their physiological needs.

Lead author Viren Swami, Professor of Social Psychology at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) in Cambridge, England, said: “These findings are important because they provide the first evidence that contact with nature may shape people’s eating habits.

“We already know that contact with natural environments can reduce anxiety and depression and improve various measures of wellbeing, including life satisfaction. Our new study is the first to show how it can influence our eating habits, thanks to helping people develop more positive relationships with their bodies and greater self-compassion, and these findings could have practical benefits for public health professionals.

“We recognise there are limitations to this study, particularly as it is based on self-reported data, and further studies in other countries are needed. However, these initial results suggest that greater access to and engagement with nature could support efforts to promote healthier, more sustainable eating behaviours.”

---

Journal

Body Image

DOI

10.1016/j.bodyim.2026.102199

Article Title

The nature of eating intuitively: An examination of direct and indirect associations between nature contact and intuitive eating

Article Publication Date

15-Oct-2026

 

Dogs can read where a person is headed from just a dozen moving dots

KeAi Communications Co., Ltd.

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

image: 

Experimental setup and stimulus examples. Dogs viewed point-light displays of human and dog walkers, and videos of a human turning the head.

view more 

Credit: Xiaohan Ma et al.

A person is nothing but 13 white dots walking on a dark screen — and most of us would still recognize a human figure and probably look the way it is going. A new study published in Cognitive Science Research shows dogs can do the same, but only when the dots represent a human, not another dog.

In the study, scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences tested 28 working dogs with point-light displays of a person or a dog walking left, right, or forward, along with videos of a real person turning their head. The dogs were free to look wherever they liked while their reactions were video-recorded for later analysis.

When the dots depicted a human walking sideways, the dogs shifted their gaze in the same direction far more often than in the opposite direction. When the dots depicted another dog, however, the animals showed no such bias. And when the human figure walked straight toward the camera, the dogs simply kept watching the center — showing that the response reflected sensitivity to walking direction rather than movement alone.

“Dogs don't need explicit training to pick up directional social cues from human movement,” says senior and corresponding author Yi Jiang, a professor at the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the study’s corresponding author. “That this response is selective: it appears for human walkers but not for dog walkers, even though both displays depicted biological motion.”

The dogs’ reaction to human point-light walkers was comparable to their reaction to human head turns — a well-known social cue. “In fact, for side-facing figures, the moving dots were slightly more effective than a head turn at drawing the dogs' gaze,” adds Jiang. “These findings suggest that dogs may use a common social-attention mechanism for different human directional social signals.”

The findings add to a growing picture of how domestication may have shaped dogs' social perception. “Although many species can perceive biological motion, evidence that animals can extract directional social cues from it remains scarce,” says co-author Xiqian Lu, who is also from the same institute. “To date, such evidence has come from monkeys and rats, which acquired this ability only after extensive training. Dogs, by contrast, responded spontaneously, and only to humans.”

The researchers noted that the dogs in the study were working dogs with daily human contact, so experience may also have contributed to their responses. “As to how much of this tuning reflects domestication and how much is shaped by individual experience is the next question,” adds Lu. “For now, nonetheless, the message is clear: a handful of moving dots is enough for dogs to tell where a person is going.”

###

Contact author details: Yi Jiang, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China. Email: yijiang@psych.ac.cn

The publisher KeAi was established by Elsevier and China Science Publishing & Media Ltd to unfold quality research globally. In 2013, our focus shifted to open access publishing. We now proudly publish more than 300 world-class, open access, English language journals, spanning all scientific disciplines. Many of these are titles we publish in partnership with prestigious societies and academic institutions, such as the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC).

---

DOI

10.1016/j.csres.2026.08.001

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

Animals

Article Title

Spontaneous extraction of human social cues from biological motion in dogs.

 

Study finds treating depression during pregnancy may benefit babies' brain development

First randomized clinical trial finds prenatal psychotherapy changes infant brain structure and is linked to lower negative emotionality in early infancy

University of Colorado Anschutz

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Treating depression during pregnancy influences infant brain development and early emotional function, according to new research published in Nature Communications.

In the first randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that a prenatal depression intervention can affect infant brain structure, researchers found that babies whose mothers received psychotherapy for depression during pregnancy showed differences in the development of a brain region involved in emotion and memory. Those brain differences were associated with lower negative emotionality in infancy.

The findings provide some of the strongest evidence to date that maternal mental health during pregnancy can have intergenerational effects on child development.

"Research has long shown that depression during pregnancy is associated with differences in children's emotional and behavioral outcomes, but most of that evidence has been correlational," said Catherine Demers, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado Anschutz and lead author. "By using a randomized clinical trial, we were able to test whether treating depression during pregnancy can actually influence early brain development in infants."

Prenatal depression is one of the most common complications of pregnancy, affecting an estimated 20% to 40% of pregnant individuals. Previous studies have linked maternal depression during pregnancy with an increased risk of emotional, behavioral and mental health challenges in children, but researchers have lacked experimental evidence to determine whether improving maternal mental health could alter those outcomes.

To answer that question, investigators conducted the Care Project, a randomized clinical trial involving pregnant individuals experiencing elevated depressive symptoms.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a form of interpersonal psychotherapy consisting of eight weekly 50-minute sessions focused on relationships and social support, or enhanced usual care, which included standard obstetric care, a psychoeducation session about depression during pregnancy and information about community mental health resources.

Infants whose mothers received psychotherapy during pregnancy developed differently in  the hippocampus, a brain region involved in memory and emotions. Babies whose mothers received treatment showed a 5% difference in their hippocampus compared with those whose mothers received usual care.  Notably, this brain region predicted better emotion regulation when babies were 6-months of age. The findings add to growing evidence that depression during pregnancy may affect how the baby’s developing brain matures, with implications for children's emotional health later in life.

"Our findings suggest that treating mother’s depression during pregnancy may help shape a healthier developmental trajectory for the infant brain," said Elysia Davis, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Denver and the SEED Research Institute and corresponding author. "This study highlights pregnancy as a critical window for intervention and reinforces that supporting maternal mental health is also an investment in child health."

The findings underscore the importance of integrating mental health services into prenatal care. Because prenatal depression is both common and treatable, improving access to evidence-based mental health interventions during pregnancy could benefit the mothers’ mental wellbeing as well as the next generation.

"These findings provide compelling evidence that mental health care during pregnancy has the potential to create intergenerational benefits," said Benjamin Hankin, PhD, Professor of Psychology at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. "Supporting maternal mental health may be one of the earliest opportunities we have to promote healthy child development."

Key Takeaways

• Prenatal depression affects up to 40% of pregnant individuals and is associated with child developmental outcomes.
• This study is the first randomized clinical trial to show that treating depression during pregnancy can influence infant brain structure.
• Babies whose mothers received psychotherapy during pregnancy showed differences in the development of the hippocampus, a brain region important for emotion and memory.
• The findings suggest that pregnancy is a critical window for preventive mental health care with potential long-term benefits for both mothers and children.

About the University of Colorado Anschutz
The University of Colorado Anschutz is a world-class academic medical campus leading transformative advances in science, medicine, education and patient care. The campus includes the University of Colorado’s health professional schools, more than 60 centers and institutes, and two nationally ranked independent hospitals - UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital and Children's Hospital Colorado - which see nearly three million adult and pediatric patient visits each year. Innovative, interconnected and highly collaborative, CU Anschutz delivers life-changing treatments, exceptional patient care and top-tier professional training. The campus conducts world-renowned research supported by $890 million in funding, including $762 million in sponsored awards and $128 million in philanthropic gifts for research.

###

---

Journal

Nature Communications

DOI

10.1038/s41467-026-78276-4

Article Publication Date

16-Oct-2026