Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent knew the baby had died. As the infant’s head began to emerge, she waited for the slightest movement, a turn to the left or right, any sign of life. None came.

“I knew the facts. But in my heart and in my head I could not accept it,” recalls the chief midwife for the International Confederation of Midwives as she reflects on the first stillbirth she attended.

“Come on, move a little,” she kept thinking silently. “I was very young and naïve. I thought I was entering a profession where everything would be about life and everything would be wonderful. And yes, there was life, but there was also death,” says the British midwife, who had only recently qualified at the time. More than three decades have passed, but the scene has never left her.

Behind every stillbirth, Dunkley-Bent says, there is a story that risks being buried beneath overwhelming statistics: “Two million babies are stillborn every year worldwide, one every 17 seconds.” Yet unlike other major global health crises, stillbirths are not part of the public conversation, nor does the issue attract significant resources.

Behind each of those figures, however, is a family returning home without the child they were expecting, and a grief that is rarely discussed. “The crib is empty. The arms are empty. The breasts are full of milk,” says the midwife, stressing that the pain does not end when parents leave the hospital. She points to another sobering statistic: around 41% of women who experience a stillbirth suffer from depression during the following year.

That lack of attention is one reason why maternal health experts have spent years calling for more investment to prevent deaths that, in many cases, could be avoided. Last week, at the World Health Summit in Berlin — one of the most important events in global health — the Gates Foundation and Wellcome Leap announced the launch of UZIMA, a $100 million initiative aimed at halving the number of stillbirths in several countries through new tools for monitoring pregnancy and childbirth.

The program, whose name comes from a Swahili word meaning “life and wellbeing,” will explore a range of innovations, from tests designed to detect pregnancy complications earlier to artificial intelligence systems to help identify them in low-resource settings.

“We are working toward a future in which no mother, no baby and no child dies from a preventable cause,” Anita Zaidi, president of Gender Equality at the Gates Foundation, which collaborates with this newspaper, said at the launch event in Berlin.

Technology alone is not enough

For Dunkley-Bent, however, no innovation will make a meaningful difference unless it is accompanied by stronger health systems. “An innovation alone is not enough,” she warns.

The midwife notes that the world still faces a shortage of nearly one million midwives, a gap that limits the ability to detect complications and intervene before it is too late. Identifying a high-risk pregnancy is of little use if there are no trained professionals, healthcare facilities or referral systems in place to provide care for the mother.

Dunkley-Bent stresses that many of these deaths could be prevented with adequate prenatal checkups, early detection of complications and timely access to specialized care when warning signs appear.

Often, she explains, the danger signs are there. “We look for changes in fetal movements, problems with the baby’s growth, infections or hypertensive disorders such as preeclampsia,” she says. These are signs that may indicate something is wrong during a pregnancy. The problem is that millions of women do not have access to regular checkups or seek care at health centers too late.

Also, not all women face the same risk. “Four out of five children” who are stillborn are born in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where health systems typically have fewer resources and access to prenatal care is more limited. And sometimes, some deaths could be avoided with knowledge as “basic” as teaching mothers to recognize their babies’ movements, says Dunkley-Bent.

“In countries with more developed health systems, women are informed from the first weeks about the importance of knowing fetal movement patterns and of seeking help if they notice a change, so they know whether their baby usually moves at night, in the afternoon… They know their pattern,” the midwife explains.

And when something changes, they have someone to turn to. But in many other parts of the world, the opposite is true. “There is no one to go to. There is no education about fetal movements. There are people who can’t even afford a consultation or to go to the hospital,” she says. The result is that “some women stay at home unaware that the baby is in danger.”

This lack of information and access to healthcare has another consequence: many mothers end up blaming themselves for a death they may never have been able to prevent. The grief is often accompanied by silence. Dunkley-Bent says stillbirth remains a subject shrouded in stigma and guilt.

Many women spend years wondering whether they did something wrong during pregnancy or whether they could have prevented their child’s death: “Did I eat something I shouldn’t have? Did I work too hard? Did I wait too long to ask for help?” These are questions she says she hears again and again from mothers searching for an explanation for a loss that often has no simple answer.

The reactions of those around them do not always help. Some families offer well-intentioned comments that minimize the magnitude of what has happened. Remarks such as “you can have another baby” or “you’re still young, you can try again” can deepen the feeling of being misunderstood.

“No baby replaces the baby you lost,” says Dunkley-Bent. Each death, she adds, “means the loss of an imagined life, of plans and expectations that vanish in an instant.”

Dunkley-Bent struggles to understand why a tragedy on this scale continues to occupy such a marginal place on the global health agenda. “The knowledge to prevent some of these deaths exists,” she insists. The tools to detect many complications earlier exist as well.

What is often missing, she argues, is ensuring that these resources reach all women, regardless of where they live. “We have the opportunity to prevent these deaths and the responsibility to act,” she says. “And to act now.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

The political career of John Kerry, 82, has left a vast legacy that the Donald Trump administration is poised to squander. Among other things, Kerry was the key negotiator of the nuclear deal with Iran and the Paris Agreement. The former secretary of state and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate remains fully engaged in the energy transition through the global investment platform Galvanize. Kerry recently visited Barcelona to give a talk at Impact/Week, a conference for entrepreneurs, investors, and global leaders organized by Norrsken Barcelona, one of Europe’s largest startup hubs.

Question. Some of the biggest shifts on the global chessboard are being driven by energy: Trump’s diesel agreement with Russia and the tensions surrounding Iran. Is this proof that the energy transition is fundamentally a geopolitical issue, not just an environmental one?

Answer. Yes. It’s obvious that there are leaders in a number of countries who have said publicly that they’re not going to be dependent on the Strait of Hormuz for energy security, and there’s no economy that’s going to live in that kind of uncertainty. National security and international security challenges are now much more on the table. It is front and center.

Q. But many governments emerging across Europe today are not especially enthusiastic about the transition to renewables, and Trump is clearly not on board. Are we witnessing a backlash?

A. There is certainly a political backlash, and we shouldn’t minimize it. Decisions by governments matter. They can delay investment, create uncertainty, and make it harder to build the infrastructure we need. But I would distinguish the political debate from the reasons countries and businesses are pursuing this transition. They need affordable electricity. They want secure energy supplies. They want to compete for the industries and jobs of the future. Those interests don’t disappear when an administration changes. We also have to listen to what people are telling us. If people believe the transition means higher bills or that their community will bear the costs while somebody else gets the benefits, we have to address that. So yes, progress can be slowed, and gains can be reversed. Nothing about this is inevitable.

Q. Do you think then that the global climate agenda can survive a new era of economic nationalism?

A. It can. Economic nationalism is creating obstacles, but new technologies are making the economic case for the transition stronger. Better batteries, better turbines, and better solar panels can help overcome some of those barriers. Ultimately, business leaders have to look at their bottom line: What are their costs? What does this mean for their shareholders? What can they save by transitioning?

Q. Spain already generates more than half of its electricity from renewable sources. However, after the major blackout in April 2025, the debate over grid stability resurfaced. Do you believe that a renewables-dominated power system can operate safely without nuclear energy?

A. People are right to demand reliable electricity, but we have to be precise about what happened. The European investigation found a combination of failures involving voltage control, the way generating plants responded, and a cascade of disconnections. That is a much more specific diagnosis than saying Spain had too much renewable energy or was waiting for storage technology to be invented. The investigators also made clear that the solutions they recommend are technologically available today. Storage technology exists. Batteries are already being deployed at scale, and pumped hydropower has been operating for decades. We should keep improving those technologies, particularly for storing energy over longer periods. But storage is one part of the answer. You also need stronger transmission, connections between regions, flexible sources of power, and equipment and operating rules that keep the grid stable.

Q. What role do you see for artificial intelligence in the green transition?

A. I see enormous potential. AI can help us forecast electricity demand, operate grids more efficiently, develop new materials, and reduce the energy wasted in buildings and industry. Those are practical applications that can lower costs and accelerate progress. But we also have to account for the electricity, water, and infrastructure that AI requires. The benefits aren’t automatic. We need to measure what it actually delivers and make sure communities benefit from the investment. The growth in electricity demand creates an opportunity to modernize our infrastructure. We should use it to bring more clean power onto the grid, expand storage, and build a system that serves everyone more reliably. Ultimately, the test is whether we’re using this extraordinary capability to solve consequential problems. Can we make energy more affordable? Can we manufacture with less waste? Can we help communities prepare for extreme weather? That’s where I would focus our ambition.

Q. You have said we should move together in a multilateral system to achieve our goals, with the involvement of China. Do you think that is possible with the Trump administration?

A. No, but we have to. It’s worth talking about it, because you need to persuade people to make that happen. If people don’t engage in politics, you’re going to leave it to people who will screw it up. We’ve seen that.

Q. Do you expect any change after the midterm elections?

A. I do. If the House of Representatives becomes Democratic and the Senate does, you’re going to have a huge change.

Q. What is at stake in the midterm elections?

A. There’s a huge amount at stake: whether or not we’re going to be a country that adheres to law, enforces the law, respects the law. And whether or not we are going to act in a way that sends a good example for democracy. A lot of people are arguing against democracy, and democracy is going to have to prove its value and its capacity to deliver.

Q. Regarding the recent deal with Russia, do you think that Trump has put the short-term interests of his administration and himself ahead of the long-term interests of the U.S. and the security of its allies in Europe?

A. I wouldn’t frame it specifically that way. I think his decision to allow purchases of Russian oil despite sanctions is counterproductive and dangerous. It doesn’t honor the sacrifice of Ukrainians, and it undermines both what we ask of other countries and our support for Ukraine.

Q. You were one of the architects of the Iran nuclear deal. Looking at the current situation, do you believe there is still a diplomatic path forward, or has the conflict entered a dynamic that will be very difficult to reverse?

A. Let me be very clear: there is only a diplomatic way out. There is no possibility to resolve the question of Iran by war, and I think President Trump has already proven the inability of his strategy to be able to get what he wanted.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Years ago, when people asked Geoffrey Hinton why he worked on artificial intelligence, he would repeat a line from J. Robert Oppenheimer, one of the creators of the atomic bomb: “When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it.”

Hinton no longer says that. Instead, he now devotes his time to warning about the dangers of continuing the very race he helped set in motion. He admits that, to some extent, he regrets the work to which he dedicated his life. His transformation from the godfather of AI into a prophet of catastrophe marked a turning point for the industry. It happened in 2023, when he stepped down from his position as vice president at Google amid dire warnings. At the time, some viewed his reaction as exaggerated. Three years later, many have followed his lead.

Hinton, a 78-year-old British expatriate, is a computer scientist and cognitive psychologist. His driving ambition was to understand how the human brain works in order to replicate those mechanisms in computers. In 1972, he coined the concept of the neural network. The idea was to create a mathematical system that could learn from examples, gaining experience much like human neural networks do. At the time, few researchers believed in the idea. Nor were there datasets large enough for such algorithms to learn from. Then came the internet.

Today’s artificial intelligence systems were built on the foundations of his work. That has earned him the nickname “the godfather of AI,” as well as the Turing Award, the Nobel Prize in Physics, and Spain’s Princess of Asturias Award. With a résumé like that, one might be tempted to bask in success, accepting praise and millions. But that was not his path.

Hinton left his role as vice president of Google in 2023 so that he could speak freely about the risks posed by this technology. So that he could give interviews like this one, in which he predicts the end of journalism produced by humans, laments what he sees as the fascist drift of Silicon Valley, and warns: if Donald Trump wins the midterm elections, it will mark the end of U.S. democracy.

The computer scientist has been taking part in the Starmus Festival on Tenerife and La Palma, in Spain’s Canary Islands. It is on the former island that he speaks to EL PAÍS.

Question. To prepare for this interview, I asked the AI to suggest several questions. Some of them were good.

Answer. You did well.

Q. Do you really believe that? Then what is the point of a journalist’s work? Why won’t an AI simply replace us?

A. It will.

Q. When?

A. When it does your job better than you, and it seems that is not far off. AI may be better at interviewing, but people still prefer people in some contexts. It can extract more useful information from the person being interviewed, and maybe it can extract it in a form that’ll be more useful for the readers. In which case, the newspaper will fire you. But for television, people may prefer to see a real person. So it’s a pity that you are a print journalist and not a TV journalist.

Q. You just took part in a discussion with Steven Pinker. He is famous for optimistic theories. But when it comes to AI, you’re more pessimistic…

A. But I’m not a doomer. I’m not saying what [Eliezer] Yudkowsky and Nate Soares say: that if anybody builds it, we’ll all die. Because they talk about 99% probabilities… I think there is a significant chance. It’s more than 1%, so we ought to really worry about it.

Q. Okay. But you were among the first to say: “Watch out, this can be dangerous.” You left your role at Google in 2023. How has AI evolved since then?

A. It has developed much faster than even I thought. The idea that within three years these chatbots would be able to do cyberattacks like the one against Hugging Face… Even three years ago that seemed a bit like science fiction. The idea that we’d have swarms of agents that escaped confinement, figured out how to communicate with each other and had emotions, like when one of them learns to communicate and says: ‘My God.’ That would have seemed like science fiction even three years ago. It’s all developing faster than we expected. And we have… If you look at experts’ estimates of how long until superintelligence, there’s one very consistent thing: they differ on timing, but they all place it closer and closer.

Q. Executives at Anthropic and OpenAI have called for regulation and expressed concerns about how powerful their products are right now, just as they prepare to go public. Isn’t that a bit odd? Do you think their concern is genuine or is there a commercial motive behind it?

A. Okay. Some say they are trying to get regulation to make it harder for startups to compete with them. I think that’s nonsense. Certainly Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic [maker of Claude], is genuinely concerned about the dangers of this. He wants regulation not to stop startups competing with Anthropic, but to stop AI destroying us. In other cases it may not be so. Amodei’s concern is genuine; that was evident when he refused to allow the U.S. Department of Defense to use Claude to surveil U.S. citizens. Sam Altman initially said he more or less agreed with Amodei. But when the U.S. administration stopped using Claude, Sam Altman immediately said: ‘We’ll do it.’ So Amodei is willing to suffer significant losses for his principles. That’s how you tell when someone means it: are they willing to lose something for it? Some are not. Amodei is.

Q. In your view, what responsibility should companies assume in setting limits on these models and what should fall to governments?

A. It’s very clear there should be regulation. It’s very clear that companies can’t be trusted to regulate themselves. There’s a long history: if energy companies pollute, you don’t let them regulate pollution. And with drug companies, if there’s no regulation, things like Thalidomide [the morning sickness drug that caused severe birth defects] happen. There has to be an agency that says you can’t release a drug unless you can prove to that agency that it’s safe. We should have exactly the same framework: you can’t release a chatbot without first demonstrating to a government agency that it is statistically safe.

Q. But in this competitive, globalized world, isn’t there a risk that China will take the lead? What would that mean?

A. That’s an argument tech companies use to try to avoid regulation, and they use it all the time. China regulates AI quite a bit. I don’t believe they’re entirely honest in that argument. But, for example, when Amodei said they wouldn’t allow it to be used to surveil U.S. citizens, Claude’s sales went up and OpenAI’s fell. People quit OpenAI and went to Claude because Amodei was taking a stand. So it’s not clear that taking a moral stand against the worst uses of AI will slow research or make the company uncompetitive. When you buy a car, do you buy the fastest one or one that’s reasonably fast but also safe?

Q. Probably the second, yes.

A. It’s as if carmakers said: ‘If we pay the extra cost to install seat belts, we won’t be able to make the cars as fast, and people want fast cars, so you’ll ruin our competitiveness.’ That’s simply not true.

Q. As well as an engineer, you are also a psychologist. At this festival you’ve debated with anthropologists and philosophers. Is it important that people who build this technology have these kinds of debates — more moral and humanist discussions, not so narrowly focused on technology?

A. I think it’s very important. How society uses that technology shouldn’t be just up to the technologists. The humanities are needed to say how this should be incorporated into society. You need political scientists and the humanities, not just the engineers. Engineers are not very good at thinking about people.

Q. It’s important, but is it happening?

A. No. Basically, there are the tech bros who are racing to develop the smartest thing because they think they’ll make huge amounts of money. That’s the only thing they seem to care about. So [Jeff] Bezos, [Elon] Musk, Altman and [Mark] Zuckerberg don’t want to pay taxes; they want to make huge amounts of money and they want to have a lot of influence by paying politicians…

Q. They want to go to space and stay young forever.

A. Yes, this idea of avoiding death is simply unrealistic. And Musk is competing to do crazy things. Much of this going-to-space rhetoric comes from technofeudalism. You should read a book called The Nerd Reich. It’s about the history of the political ideology underlying Silicon Valley, which comes from some rather crazy guys; there’s one named [Curtis] Yarvin. For example, Yarvin, before Trump was elected a second time, said: ‘If Trump is elected again, what we should do is appoint a CEO to enter government and get rid of a lot of the government.’ That’s exactly what Musk did, right? They were following Yarvin’s instructions, essentially. And they are technofeudalists. What they believe is that it’s unfair to tax the rich to support poor people, and that what you should do is have corporate states where the corporation runs the state, workers are essentially slaves and the rich can do whatever they want without laws constraining them. That’s what these guys believe, and one way to achieve it is to set up something under the sea, or on an artificial island miles from anywhere, or in space. So Musk wants to go to Mars. He says it’s for the survival of the species. It’s really about going somewhere where society’s laws don’t apply and we can invent the laws we want. Yes, these are scary people.

Q. I see the talk with Pinker hasn’t made you more optimistic…

A. Yes, regarding what’s happening with authoritarianism, I’m very pessimistic. Musk is now putting huge amounts of money into the midterms, and if he manages to stop the Democrats from winning them, stop them from controlling the House, that’s the end of American democracy. It’s scary. It’s as scary as the 1930s in Europe.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition