Cart wheels left deep ruts in the stone streets of PompeiiimagoDens/ShutterstockA close look at Pompeiis stone-paved streets has shown how traffic through the ancient city changed dramatically after it was incorporated into the Roman world.Although often seen as a quintessentially Roman place, Pompeii was anything but. For several centuries it was actually governed by a different people known as the Samnites and even after it fell to the Romans in 89 BC, Pompeii retained traces of its Samnite identity right up until its destruction by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79.Read more

Eske Willerslev was on a tour of Montreals Redpath Museum, a Victorian-era natural history collection of 700,000 objects, many displayed in wood and glass cabinets. The collectionvery, very eclectic, a curator explainedreflects the taste in souvenirs of 19th-century travelers and geology buffs. A visitor can see a leg bone from an extinct Stellers sea cow, a suit of samurai armor, a stuffed cougar, and two human mummies. Willerslev, a well-known specialist in obtaining DNA from old bones and objects, saw potential biological samples throughout this hodgepodge of artifacts. Glancing at a small Egyptian cooking pot, he asked the tour leader, Do you ever find any grain in these? After studying a dinosaur skeleton that proved to be a cast, not actual bone, he said: Too bad. There can be proteins on the teeth. I am always thinking, Is there something interesting to take DNA from? he said, glancing at the curators. But they dont like it, because Willerslev, who until recently traveled with a small power saw, made a back-and-forth slicing motion with his hand. Willerslev was visiting Montreal to receive a science prize from the World Cultural Councilone previously given to the string theorist Edward Witten and the astrophysicist Margaret Burbidge, for her work on quasars. Willerslev won it for numerous breakthroughs in evolutionary genetics. These include recovering the first more or less complete genome of an ancient man, in 2010, and setting a record for the oldest genetic material ever retrieved: 2.4-million-year-old genes from a frozen mound in Greenland, which revealed that the Arctic desert was once a forest, complete with poplar, birch, and roaming mastodons. These findings are only part of a wave of discoveries from whats being called an ancient-DNA revolution, in which the same high-speed equipment used to study the DNA of living things is being turned on specimens from the past. At the Globe Institute, part of the University of Copenhagen, where Willerslev works, theres a freezer full of human molars and ear bones cut from skeletons previously unearthed by archaeologists. Another holds sediment cores drilled from lake bottoms, in which his group is finding traces of entire ecosystems that no longer exist. Were literally walking on DNA, both from the present and from the past. Eske Willerslev Thanks to a few well-funded labs like the one in Copenhagen, the gene time machine has never been so busy. There are genetic maps of saber-toothed cats, cave bears, and thousands of ancient humans, including Vikings, Polynesian navigators, and numerous Neanderthals. The total number of ancient humans studied is more than 10,000 and rising fast, according to a December 2024 tally that appeared in Nature. The sources of DNA are increasing too. Researchers managed to retrieve an Ice Age womans genome from a carved reindeer tooth, whose surface had absorbed her DNA. Others are digging at cave floors and coming up with records of people and animals that lived there. Were literally walking on DNA, both from the present and from the past, Willerslev says. Eske Willerslev leads one of a handful of laboratories pioneering the extraction and sequencing of ancient DNA from humans, animals, and the environment. His groups main competition is at Harvard University and at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.JONAS PRYNER ANDERSEN The old genes have already revealed remarkable stories of human migrations around the globe. But researchers are hoping ancient DNA will be more than a telescope on the pastthey hope it will have concrete practical use in the present. Some have already started mining the DNA of our ancestors for clues to the origin of modern diseases, like diabetes and autoimmune conditions. Others aspire to use the old genetic data to modify organisms that exist today. At Willerslevs center, for example, a grant of 500 million kroner ($69 million) from the foundation that owns the Danish drug company Novo Nordisk is underwriting a project whose aims include incorporating DNA variation from plants that lived in ancient climates into the genomes of food crops like barley, wheat, and rice. The plan is to redesign crops and even entire ecosystems to resist rising temperatures or unpredictable weather, and it is already underwaylast year, barley shoots bearing genetic information from plants that lived in Greenland 2 million years ago, when temperatures there were far higher than today, started springing up in experimental greenhouses. Willerslev, who started out looking for genetic material in ice cores, is leaning into this possibility as the next frontier of ancient-DNA research, a way to turn it from historical curiosity to potential planet-saver. If nothing is done to help food crops adapt to climate change, people will starve, he says. But if we go back into the past in different climate regimes around the world, then we should be able to find genetic adaptations that are useful. Its natures own response to a climate event. And can we get that? Yes, I believe we can. Shreds and traces In 1993, just a day before the release of the blockbuster Steven Spielberg film Jurassic Park, scientists claimed in a paper that they had extracted DNA from a 120-million-year-old weevil preserved in amber. The discovery seemed to bring the films premise of a cloned T. rex closer to reality. Sooner or later, a scientist said at the time, were going to find amber containing some biting insect that filled its stomach with blood from a dinosaur. But those results turned out to be falselikely the result of contamination by modern DNA. The problem is that modern DNA is much more abundant than whats left in an old tooth or sample of dirt. Thats because the genetic molecule is constantly chomped on by microbes and broken up by water and radiation. Over time, the fragments get smaller and smaller, until most are so short that no one can tell whether they belonged to a person or a saber-toothed cat. Imagine an ancient genome as a big old book, and that all the pages have been torn out, put through a shredder, and tossed into the air to be lost with the wind. Only a few shreds of paper remain. Even worse, they are mixed with shreds of paper from other books, old and new, says Elizabeth Jones, a science historian. Her 2022 book, Ancient DNA: The Making of a Celebrity Science, details researchers overwhelming fear of contaminationboth literal, from modern DNA, and of the more figurative sort that can occur when scientists are so tempted by the prospect of fame and being first that they risk spinning sparse data into far-fetched stories. When I entered the field, my supervisor said this is a very, very dodgy path to take, says Willerslev. But the problem of mixed-up and fragmented old genes was largely solved beginning in 2005, when US companies first introduced ultra-fast next-generation machinery for analyzing genomes. These machines, meant for medical research, required short fragments for fast performance. And ancient-DNA researchers found they could use them to brute-force their way through even poorly preserved samples. Almost immediately, they started recovering large parts of the genomes of cave bears and woolly mammoths. Ancient humans were not far behind. Willerslev, who was not yet famous, didnt have access to human bones, and definitely not the bones of Neanderthals (the best ones had been corralled by the scientist Svante Pbo, who was already analyzing them with next-gen sequencers in Germany). But Willerslev did learn about a six-inch-long tuft of hair collected from a 4,000-year-old midden, or trash heap, on Greenlands coast. The hair had been stored in a plastic bag in Denmarks National Museum for years. When he asked about it, curators told him they thought it was human but couldnt be sure. Well, I mean, do you know any other animal in Greenland with straight black hair? he says. Not really, right? The hair turned out to contain well-preserved DNA, and in 2010, Willerslev published a paper in Nature describing the genome of an extinct Paleo-Eskimo. It was the first more or less complete human genome from the deep past. What it showed was a man with type A+ blood, probably brown eyes and thick dark hair, andmost tellinglyno descendants. His DNA code had unique patterns not found in the Inuit who occupy Greenland today. Give the archaeologists credit because they have the hypothesis. But we can nail it and say, Yes, this is what happened. Lasse Vinner The hair had come from a site once occupied by a group called the Saqqaq, who first reached Greenland around 4,500 years ago. Archaeologists already knew that the Saqqaqs particular style of making bird darts and spears had vanished suddenly, but perhaps that was because theyd merged with another group or moved away. Now the mans genome, with specific features pointing to a genetic dead end, suggested they really had died out, very possibly because extreme isolation, and inbreeding, had left them vulnerable. Maybe there was a bad year when the migrating reindeer did not appear. Give the archaeologists credit because they have the hypothesis. But we can nail it and say, Yes, this is what happened, says Lasse Vinner, who oversees daily operations at the Copenhagen ancient-DNA lab. Weve substantiated or falsified a number of archaeological hypotheses. In November, Vinner, zipped into head-to-toe white coveralls, led a tour through the Copenhagen labs, located in the basement of the citys Natural History Museum. Samples are processed there in a series of cleanrooms under positive air pressure. In one, the floors were still wet with bleachjust one of the elaborate measures taken to prevent modern DNA from getting in, whether from a researchers shoes or from floating pollen. Its partly because of the costly technologies, cleanrooms, and analytical expertise required for the work that research on ancient human DNA is dominated by a few powerful labsin Copenhagen, at Harvard University, and in Leipzig, Germanythat engage in fierce competition for valuable samples and discoveries. A 2019 New York Times Magazine investigation described the field as an oligopoly, rife with perverse incentives and a smash-and-grab culturein other words, artifact chasing straight out of Raiders of the Lost Ark. To get his share, Willerslev has relied on his growing celebrity, projecting the image of a modern-day explorer who is always ready to trade his tweeds for muck boots and venture to some frozen landscape or Native American cave. Add to that a tale of redemption. Willerslev often recounts his struggles in school and as a would-be mink hunter in Siberia (Im not only a bad studentIm also a tremendously bad trapper, he says) before his luck changed once he found science. This narrative has made him a favorite on television programs like Nova and secured lavish funding from Danish corporations. His first autobiography was titled From Fur Hunter to Professor. A more recent one is called simply Its a Fucking Adventure. Peering into the past The scramble for old bones has produced a parade of headlines about the peopling of the planet, and especially of western Eurasiafrom Iceland to Tehran, roughly. Thats where most ancient DNA samples originate, thanks to colder weather, centuries of archaeology, and active research programs. At the National Museum in Copenhagen, some skeletons on display to the public have missing teethteeth that ended up in the Globe Institutes ancient-DNA lab as part of a project to analyze 5,000 sets of remains from Eurasia, touted as the largest single trove of old genomes yet. What ancient DNA uncovered in Europe is a broad-brush story of three population waves of modern humans. First to come out of Africa were hunter-gatherers who dispersed around the continent, followed by farmers who spread out of Anatolia starting 11,000 years ago. That wave saw the establishment of agriculture and ceramics and brought new stone tools. Last came a sweeping incursion of people (and genes) from the plains of modern Ukraine and Russiaanimal herders known as the Yamnaya, who surged into Western Europe spreading the roots of the Indo-European languages now spoken from Dublin to Bombay. Mixed history The DNA in ancient human skeletons reveals prehistoric migrations. The genetic background of Europeans was shaped by three major migrations starting about 45,000 years ago. First came hunter-gatherers. Next came farmers from Anatolia, bringing crops and new ways of living. Lastly, mobile herders called the Yamnaya spread from the steppes of modern Russia and Ukraine. The DNA in ancient skeletons holds a record of these dramatic population changes. Adapted from 100 ancient genomes show repeated population turnovers in Neolithic Denmark, Nature, January 10, 2024, and Tracing the peopling of the world through genomics, Nature, January 18, 2017 Archaeologists had already pieced together an outline of this history through material culture, examining shifts in pottery styles and burial methods, the switch from stone axes to metal ones. Some attributed those changes to cultural transmission of knowledge rather than population movements, a view encapsulated in the phrase pots, not people. However, ancient DNA showed that much of the change was, in fact, the result of large-scale migration, not all of which looks peaceful. Indeed, in Denmark, the hunter-gatherer DNA signature all but vanishes within just two generations after the arrival of farmers during the late Stone Age. To Willerslev, the rapid population replacement looks like some kind of genocide, to be honest. Its a guess, of course, but how else to explain the limited genetic contribution to subsequent generations of the blue-eyed, dark-haired locals whod fished and hunted around Denmarks islands for nearly 5,000 years? Certainly, the bodies in Copenhagens museums suggest violencesome have head injuries, and one still has arrows in it. In other cases, its obvious that populations met and mixed; the average ethnic European today shares some genetic contribution from all three founding groupshunter, farmer, and herderand a little bit from Neanderthals, too.We had the idea that people stay put, and if things change, its because people learned to do something new, through movements of ideas, says Willerslev. Ancient DNA showed that is not the casethat the transitions from hunter-gatherers to farming, from bronze to iron, from iron to Viking, [are] actually due to people coming and going, mixing up and bringing new knowledge. It means the world that we observe today, with Poles in Poland and Greeks in Greece, is very, very young. With an increasing number of old bodies giving up their DNA secrets, researchers have started to search for evidence of genetic adaptation that has occurred in humans since the last ice age (which ended about 12,000 years ago), a period that the Copenhagen group noted, in a January 2024 report, involved some of the most dramatic changes in diet, health, and social organization experienced during recent human evolution. Every human gene typically comes in a few different possible versions, and by studying old bodies, its possible to see which of these versions became more common or less so with timepotentially an indicator that theyre under selection, meaning they influenced the odds that a person stayed alive to reproduce. These pressures are often closely tied to the environment. One clear signal that pops out of ancient European genes is a trend toward lighter skinwhich makes it easier to produce vitamin D in the face of diminished sunlight and a diet based on grains. DNA from ancient human skeletons could help us understand the origins of modern diseases, like multiple sclerosis.MIKAL SCHLOSSER/UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN New technology and changing lifestyleslike agriculture and living in proximity to herd animals (and their diseases)were also potent forces. Last fall, when Harvard University scientists scanned DNA from skeletons, they said theyd detected rampant evidence of evolutionary action. The shifts appeared especially in immune system genes and in a definite trend toward less body fat, the genetic markers of which they found had decreased significantly over ten millennia. That finding, they said, was consistent with the thrifty gene hypothesis, a feast-or-famine theory developed in the 1960s, which states that before the development of farming, people needed to store up more food energy, but doing so became less of an advantage as food became more abundant. Many of the same genes that put people at risk for multiple sclerosis today almost certainly had some benefit in the past. Such discoveries could start to explain some modern disease mysteries, such as why multiple sclerosis is unusually common in Nordic countries, a pattern that has perplexed doctors. The condition seems to be a latitudinal disease, becoming more prevalent the farther north you go; theories have pointed to factors including the relative lack of sunlight. In January of last year, the Copenhagen team, along with colleagues, claimed that ancient DNA had solved the riddle, saying the increased risk could be explained in part by the very high amount of Yamnaya ancestry among people in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. When they looked at modern people, they found that mutations known to increase the risk of multiple sclerosis were far more likely to occur in stretches of DNA people had inherited from these Yamnaya ancestors than in parts of their genomes originating elsewhere. Theres a twist to the story: Many of the same genes that put people at risk for multiple sclerosis today almost certainly had some benefit in the past. In fact, theres a clear signal these gene versions were once strongly favored and on the increase. Will Barrie, a postdoc at Cambridge University who collaborated on the research, says the benefit could have been related to germs and infections that these pastoralists were getting from animals. But if modern people dont face the same exposures, their immune system might still try to box at shadows, resulting in autoimmune disease. That aligns with evidence that children who arent exposed to enough pathogens may be more likely to develop allergies and other problems later in life. I think the whole sort of lesson of this work is, like, we are living with immune systems that we have inherited from our past, says Barrie. And weve plunged it into a completely new, modern environment, which is often, you know, sanitary. Telling stories about human evolution often involves substantial guessworkfindings are frequently reversed. But the researchers in Copenhagen say they will be trying to more systematically scan the past for health clues. In addition to the DNA of ancient peoples, theyre adding genetic information on what pathogens these people were infected with (germs based on DNA, like plague bacteria, can also get picked up by the sequencers), as well as environmental data, such as average temperatures at points in the past, or the amount of tree cover, which can give an idea of how much animal herding was going on. The resulting panelsof people, pathogens, and environmentscould help scientists reach stronger conclusions about cause and effect. Some see in this research the promise of a new kind of evolutionary medicinedrugs tailored to your ancestry. However, the research is not far enough along to propose a solution for multiple sclerosis. For now, its just interesting. Barrie says several multiple sclerosis patients have written him and said they were comforted to think their affliction had an explanation. We know that [the genetic variants] were helpful in the past. Theyre there for a reason, a good reasonthey really did help your ancestors survive, he says. I hope thats helpful to people in some sense. Bringing things back In Jurassic Park, which was the highest-grossing movie of all time until Titanic came out in 1997, scientists dont just get hold of old DNA. They also use it to bring dinosaurs back to life, a development that leads to action-packed and deadly consequences. The idea seemed like fantasy when the film debuted. But Jurassic Park presaged current ambitions to bring past genes into the present. Some of these efforts are small in scale. In 2021, for instance, researchers added a Neanderthal gene to human cells and turned those into brain organoids, which they reported were smaller and lumpier than expected. Others are aiming for living animals. Texas-based Colossal Biosciences, which calls itself the first de-extinction company, says it will be trying to use a combination of gene editing, cloning, and artificial wombs to re-create extinct species such as mammoths and the Tasmanian tiger, or thylacine. Colossal recently recruited a well-known paleogenomics expert, Beth Shapiro, to be its chief scientist. In 2022, Shapiro, previously an advisor to the company, said that she had sequenced the genome of an extinct dodo bird from a skull kept in a museum. The past, by its nature, is different from anything that exists today, says Shapiro, explaining that Colossal is reaching into the past to discoverevolutionary innovations that we might use to help species and ecosystems thrive today and into the future. The idea of bringing extinct animals back to life seemed like fantasy when Jurassic Park debuted. But the film presaged current ambitions to bring past genes into the present. Its not yet clear how realistic the companys plan to reintroduce missing species and restore natures balance really is, although the public would likely buy tickets to see even a poor copy of an extinct animal. Some similar practical questions surround the large grant Willerslev won last year from the philanthropic foundation of Novo Nordisk, whose anti-obesity drugs have turned it into Denmarks most valuable company. The projects concept is to read the blueprints of long-gone ecosystems and look for geneticinformation that might help major food crops succeed in shorter or hotter growing seasons. Willerslev says hes concerned that climate change will be unpredictableits hard to say if it will be too wet in any particular area or too dry. But the past could offer a data bank of plausible solutions, which he thinks needs to be prepared now. The prototype project is already underway using unusual mutations in plant DNA found in the 2-million-year-old dirt samples from Greenland. Some of these have been introduced into modern barley plants by the Carlsberg Group, a brewer that is among the worlds largest beer companies and operates an extensive crop lab in Copenhagen. Eske Willerslev collects samples in the Canadian Arctic during a summer 2024 field trip. DNA preserved in soil could help determine how megafauna, like the woolly mammoth, went extinct.RYAN WILKES/UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN One gene being studied is for a blue-light receptor, a protein that helps plants decide when to flowera trait also of interest to modern breeders. Two and a half million years ago, the world was warm, and parts of Greenland particularly somore than 10 C hotter than today. That is why vegetation could grow there. But Greenland hasnt moved, so the plants must have also been specially adapted to the stress of a months-long dusk followed by weeks of 24-hour sunlight. Willerslev says barley plants with the mutation are already being grown under different artificial light conditions, to see the effects. Our hypothesis is that you could use ancient DNA to identify new traits and as a blueprint for modern crop breeding, says Birgitte Skadhauge, who leads the Carlsberg Research Laboratory. The immediate question is whether barley can grow in the high northsay, in Greenland or upper Norway, something that could be important on a warming planet. The research is considered exploratory and separate from Carlsbergs usual commercial efforts to discover useful traits that cut costsof interest since it brews 10 billion liters of beer a year, or enough to fill the Empire State Building nine times. Scientists often try hit-or-miss strategies to change plant traits. But Skadhauge says plants from unusual environments, like a warm Greenland during the Pleistocene era, will have incorporated the DNA changes that are important already. Nature, you know, actually adapted the plants, she says. It already picked the mutation that was useful to it. And if nature has adapted to climate change over so many thousands of years, why not reuse some of that genetic information? Many of the lake cores being tapped by the Copenhagen researchers cover more recent times, only 3,000 to 10,000 years ago. But the researchers can also use those to search for ideassay, by tracing the genetic changes humans imposed on barley as they bred it to become one of humanitys founder crops. Among the earliest changes people chose were those leading to naked seeds, since seeds with a sticky husk, while good for making beer, tend to be less edible. Skadhauge says the team may be able to reconstruct barleys domestication, step by step. There isnt much precedent for causing genetic information to time-travel forward. To avoid any Jurassic Parktype mishaps, Willerslev says, hes building a substantial ethics team for dealing with questions about what does it mean if youre introducing ancient traits into the world. The team will have to think about the possibility that those plants could outcompete todays varieties, or that the benefits would be unevenly distributedhelping northern countries, for example, and not those closer to the equator. Willerslev says his labs evolution away from human bones toward much older DNA is intentional. He strongly hints that the team has already beat its own record for the oldest genes, going back even more than 2.4 million years. And as the first to look further back in time, hes certain to make big discoveriesand more headlines. Its a blue ocean, he saysone that no one has ever seen. A new adventure, he says, is practically guaranteed.

Many artists worry about the encroachment of artificial intelligence on artistic creation. But Sougwen Chung, a nonbinary Canadian-Chinese artist, instead sees AI as an opportunity for artists to embrace uncertainty and challenge people to think about technology and creativity in unexpected ways. Chungs exhibitions are driven by technology; theyre also live and kinetic, with the artwork emerging in real time. Audiences watch as the artist works alongside or surrounded by one or more robots, human and machine drawing simultaneously. These works are at the frontier of what it means to make art in an age of fast-accelerating artificial intelligence and robotics. I consistently question the idea of technology as just a utilitarian instrument, says Chung. [Chung] comes from drawing, and then they start to work with AI, but not like weve seen in this generative AI movement where its all about generating images on screen, says Sofian Audry, an artist and scholar at the University of Quebec in Montreal, who studies the relationships that artists establish with machines in their work. [Chung is] really into this idea of performance. So theyre turning their drawing approach into a performative approach where things happen live. Audiences watch as Chung works alongside or surrounded by robots, human and machine drawing simultaneously. The artwork, Chung says, emerges not just in the finished piece but in all the messy in-betweens. My goal, they explain, isnt to replace traditional methods but to deepen and expand them, allowing art to arise from a genuine meeting of human and machine perspectives. Such a meeting took place in January 2025 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where Chung presented Spectral, a performative art installation featuring painting by robotic arms whose motions are guided by AI that combines data from earlier works with real-time input from an electroencephalogram. My alpha state drives the robots behavior, translating an internal experience into tangible, spatial gestures, says Chung, referring to brain activity associated with being quiet and relaxed. Works like Spectral, they say, show how AI can move beyond being just an artistic toolor threatto become a collaborator. Spectral, a performative art installation presented in January, featured robotic arms whose drawing motions were guided by real-time input from an EEG worn by the artist.COURTESY OF THE ARTIST Through AI, says Chung, robots can perform in unexpected ways. Creating art in real time allows these surprises to become part of the process: Live performance is a crucial component of my work. It creates a real-time relationship between me, the machine, and an audience, allowing everyone to witness the systems unpredictabilities and creative possibilities. Chung grew up in Canada, the child of immigrants from Hong Kong. Their father was a trained opera singer, their mom a computer programmer. Growing up, Chung played multiple musical instruments, and the family was among the first on the block to have a computer. I was raised speaking both the language of music and the language of code, they say. The internet offered unlimited possibilities: I was captivated by what I saw as a nascent, optimistic frontier. Their early works, mostly ink drawings on paper, tended to be sprawling, abstract explosions of form and line. But increasingly, Chung began to embrace performance. Then in 2015, at 29, after studying visual and interactive art in college and graduate school, they joined the MIT Media Lab as a research fellow. I was inspired by the idea that the robotic form could be anythinga sculptural embodied interaction, they say. Drawing Operations Unit: Generation 1 (DOUG 1) was the first of Chungs collaborative robots.COURTESY OF THE ARTIST Chung found open-source plans online and assembled a robotic arm that could hold its own pencil or paintbrush. They added an overhead camera and computer vision software that could analyze the video stream of Chung drawing and then tell the arm where to make its marks to copy Chungs work. The robot was named Drawing Operations Unit: Generation 1, or DOUG 1. The goal was mimicry: As the artist drew, the arm copied. Except it didnt work out that way. The arm, unpredictably, made small errant movements, creating sketches that were similar to Chungsbut not identical. These mistakes became part of the creative process. One of the most transformative lessons Ive learned is to poeticize error, Chung says. That mindset has given me a real sense of resilience, because Im no longer afraid of failing; I trust that the failures themselves can be generative. DOUG 3COURTESY OF THE ARTIST For the next iteration of the robot, DOUG 2, which launched in 2017, Chung spent weeks training a recurrent neural network using their earlier work as the training data. The resulting robot used a mechanical arm to generate new drawings during live performances. The Victoria and Albert Museum in London acquired the DOUG 2 model as part of a sculptural exhibit of Chungs work in 2022. DOUG 2COURTESY OF THE ARTIST DOUG 4COURTESY OF THE ARTIST For a third iteration of DOUG, Chung assembled a small swarm of painting robots, their movements dictated by data streaming into the studio from surveillance cameras that tracked people and cars on the streets of New York City. The robots paths around the canvas followed the citys flow. DOUG 4, the version behind Spectral, connects to an EEG headset that transmits electrical signal data from Chungs brain to the robotic arms, which then generate drawings based on those signals. The spatiality of performance and the tactility of instrumentsrobotics, painting, paintbrushes, sculpturehas a grounding effect for me, Chung says. Artistic practices like drawing, painting, performance, and sculpture have their own creative language, Chung adds. So too does technology. I find it fascinating to [study the] material histories of all these mediums and [find] my place within it, and without it, they say. It feels like contributing to something that is my own and somehow much larger than myself. The rise of faster, better AI models has brought a flood of concern about creativity, especially given that generative technology is trained on existing art. I think theres a huge problem with some of the generative AI technologies, and theres a big threat to creativity, says Audry, who worries that people may be tempted to disengage from creating new kinds of art. If people get their work stolen by the system and get nothing out of it, why would they go and do it in the first place? Chung agrees that the rights and work of artists should be celebrated and protected, not poached to fuel generative models, but firmly believes that AI can empower creative pursuits. Training your own models and exploring how your own data work within the feedback loop of an AI system can offer a creative catalyst for art-making, they say. And they are not alone in thinking that the technology threatening creative art also presents extraordinary opportunities. Theres this expansion and mixing of disciplines, and people are breaking lines and creating mixes, says Audry, who is thrilled with the approaches taken by artists like Chung. Deep learning is supporting that because its so powerful, and robotics, too, is supporting that. So thats great. Zihao Zhang, an architect at the City College of New York who has studied the ways that humans and machines influence each others actions and behaviors, sees Chungs work as offering a different story about human-machine interactions. Were still kind of trapped in this idea of AI versus human, and which ones better, he says. AI is often characterized in the media and movies as antagonistic to humanitysomething that can replace our workers or, even worse, go rogue and become destructive. He believes Chung challenges such simplistic ideas: Its no longer about competition, but about co-production. Though people have valid reasons to worry, Zhang says, in that many developers and large companies are indeed racing to create technologies that may supplant human workers, works like Chungs subvert the idea of either-or. Chung believes that artificial intelligence is still human at its core. It relies on human data, shaped by human biases, and it impacts human experiences in turn, they say. These technologies dont emerge in a vacuumtheres real human effort and material extraction behind them. For me, art remains a space to explore and affirm human agency. Stephen Ornes is a science writer based in Nashville.

I started homeschooling my son when he was 9 and thought a strict schedule would help him succeed.However, I soon realized I was draining the joy of learning straight out of him.So, I gradually began to let go and give him more autonomy. It's exactly what he needed.I never considered that my decision to homeschool my 9-year-old son would teach me some new lessons, too.When we started, I used some of the same conventional strategies I'd seen from other homeschool moms I knew.I mapped out precise schedules, intentional time blocks, and outside breaks followed by nagging reminders every 10 to 20 minutes to read, tidy up, brush his teeth anything I wanted him to complete.When I requested a task, I expected him to act immediately, without question. When he didn't, I considered it disrespectful and made everything into a critical teaching moment.I assumed my structured methods would be just what he needed to succeed.I was wrong and burnout soon followedThe tighter I pulled the reins, the more resistant and unmotivated he became. Soon, the charisma and confidence that once beamed in my son's eyes began to dim.I swore I was doing everything right, but his reactions made me feel defeated. Burnout soon followed for both of us.So, I reassessed our way of homeschooling and learned to embrace my son's independent nature.Some kids thrive on strict schedules, but mine doesn't, and after some difficulty, I was able to admit that's okay.Little by little, I began to let goI swapped my precise schedules for a daily planner, which he uses to plan his day around appointments or extracurricular lessons.His excitement and motivation toward daily tasks returned as he reclaimed his time and autonomy.Another area I adjusted was grocery shopping. Before, when he asked why we couldn't buy the sugary snack, my standard response was, "Because I said so," which wasn't helpful to anyone.Now, I use grocery shopping as an opportunity to teach him about diet and nutrition. For example, I taught him how to read nutrition labels so that when he asks, I say, "Read the back. See what you think."This leads to a fun discussion and research on how ingredients affect our physiology. He loved that pairing.I choose to parent differently every single dayI grew up in a controlling home where I learned to be fearful of rejection over differences of opinion.This ultimately impacted how I approached motherhood and, eventually, homeschooling.Thankfully, I caught myself before I repeated most of those behaviors as a mom. However, it took effort. I had to learn to respond instead of react to what was happening around me.That's the beauty of being committed to learning: you can always start over. I intentionally choose to parent differently every single day.My willingness to change and adapt paid offToday, I have a son who is eager to learn. He's willing to dig deeper without me asking, and I often find him starting lessons before I've gotten a chance to check his calendar for the day.I didn't think homeschooling would be my moment of humility, but I know I'll never regret what it taught me in those early days.Almost 2 years later, we are in a groove as a team. While I thought homeschooling would be temporary, we are both open to continuing as long as it works for both of us.I now understand my mothering is meant to empower my son in his own unique way by emphasizing his strengths independence and confidence over grade metrics.

Secondary buyers had little interest in X last year, but that has shifted recently, according to Rainmaker Securities.Buyers have been willing to purchase shares at around the same price Elon Musk paid in 2022.Banks led by Morgan Stanley have been offloading billions in X debt at face value.In the last month and a half, Glen Anderson, CEO and co-founder of Rainmaker Securities, has started to see prospective buyers express increased interest in shares of X, formerly known as Twitter."I wouldn't call it a flood, but there's been a decent volume of X orders coming in," Anderson said. "There's a sense that the downside of the story is played out, and Elon is going to work his magic. He seems to be very invested in making it a successful platform."That marks a reversal from last year when he had little luck finding buyers."There was nothing, literally zero, in all of 2024," Anderson remembers.Now, buyers have been interested in purchasing shares at around the same price Musk paid in 2022, $54.20-per-share at a $44 billion valuation, according to Anderson. It's worth noting that expressing interest in buying shares in the secondary market is a lot different than actually committing real money to a transaction.Fidelity, an investor in X, valued its shares of X at $31-a-share at the end of 2024, according to recent disclosures.Unlike stock in public companies like Tesla, which anyone can instantly buy or sell, trading shares of private companies is much more complicated, requiring middlemen like Rainmaker to complete the deals. Sellers are usually employees or early investors looking to cash out, while buyers include family offices and hedge funds. Anderson said there are current deals to purchase shares of X in progress. However, deals can take months to complete, and in the case of X, trading is highly restricted, according to Anderson. None of the deals have closed yet."You're not going to sell without Elon's blessing," he said. "And you're not going to buy without Elon's blessing." X approves all secondary transactions.Buyers on Caplight, another secondary platform, are now valuing X at $42 billion, up from a low of $25 billion in 2023, according to Javier Avalos, Caplight's cofounder and CEO. Buyers are expressing interest in buying shares of X at $46.50 per share, said Avalos. Musk's 2022 purchase was financed through a combination of equity and $13 billion in debt, which has also seen a rebound. Banks led by Morgan Stanley have been offloading billions in X debt at face value, a price higher than they initially anticipated. Investor interest in the debt peaked because of Musk's influence in President Donald Trump's administration, X's equity stake in Musk's AI startup xAI, and improved revenue from X, according to Bloomberg. Another reason for newfound interest in X shares is investors have bid up the price of other Musk companies after the election and are trying to find other opportunities, according to Greg Martin, Rainmaker's managing director and co-founder."People couldn't put money fast enough into Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, and Neuralink," said Martin. "They've gone through the totem poll of investments, and X is the last one they need to figure out how to find value in."Other secondary brokers and investors still have yet to see substantial interest in X shares, but they expect sentiment could change in the coming months."We haven't seen much buyer or seller interest," said Ken Sawyer, managing director and co-founder of Saints Capital, a firm that focuses exclusively on buying secondary shares of private companies. "Ultimately, I expect demand will be muted until there is proven traction in the Grok integration, a rebounding in spend from advertisers, and proven monetization with X's creator business," said Shriram Bhashyam, chief operating officer of VC deal platform Sydecar. "If X can deliver on some of these bets, these interests may turn into robust secondary market activity."It is unclear whether X's financial picture is improving. In an internal email viewed by the Wall Street Journal last month,Musk sounded pessimistic.However, Business Insider's recent analysis of four independent data sources suggests that X's pool of advertisers is growing, but it's far from the revenue lost following Musk's 2022 takeover.Do you have information about X or other startups? Please contact reporter Ben Bergman securely on Signal @BenBergman.11

Shortly after his inauguration, President Donald Trump took a set of thick, black permanent markers and signed a sweeping set of executive orders that took aim at everything from immigration and gender to TikTok and climate change. One of his first moves was to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations global health agency responsible for safeguarding and promoting health around the world since 1948. The US is one of the WHOs biggest funders, so any shortage of financial and political support will likely have major ramifications for global health efforts like eliminating malaria, improving access to high-quality health care, and reducing maternal mortality. While that may not directly matter to rich countries like the US that have the means to address their own health challenges, one of the WHOs most important jobs is to help coordinate the international response to pandemics and outbreaks events that can threaten everyone, regardless of borders, as we learned during Covid-19. To Trump and his supporters, the WHOs perceived failure on that job is one of the biggest reasons why the US should withdraw. Chief among Trumps complaints are the WHOs mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic and other global health crises, its failure to reform, and its inability to demonstrate independence from powerful but authoritarian WHO member states, namely China.Trumps decision has engendered plenty of criticism, including from experts who argue that the US could suffer if it loses access to vital WHO data on outbreaks. Still, the WHO is far from perfect, and even before Trump, scientists, think tanks, and government bodies have been pointing out the WHOs myriad problems, from the lack of term limits for senior leadership to its massive budget for headquarters staff who are paid additional stipends (around $5,000 to $7,000 per month) to cover the cost of living in Geneva, one of the worlds most expensive cities. Ive seen the inefficiencies and mismanagement first hand: In my almost 10-year career as a global health epidemiologist, I have interacted with the WHO on many occasions, including, at times, coordinating with them to respond to disease outbreaks in Africa. Like Trump, my biggest complaint is that the organization has shown it is loath to reflect on and address its deficiencies deficiencies that matter hugely when it has been given the monumental responsibility of safeguarding the worlds health. There has always been some intangible and unspoken sense that the WHO cannot be wrong and cannot be questioned, even after it was clear that it bungled certain aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic. But while the WHO is far from perfect, many of its flaws are symptoms of more fundamental challenges that go beyond how it is governed. Balancing the need to respond to international health threats while respecting national sovereignty means cooperation is a fine line and its one thats becoming harder for the agency to walk.For the WHO to survive, it needs to improve. And for the US to have the best chances of protecting itself from future global health emergencies especially as the Trump administration also works to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development, another key player in global health and development it still needs the WHO. But it needs a better one.In his executive order, Trump reiterated many of the same issues he raised five years ago when he first threatened to withdraw from the WHO. One of Trumps biggest complaints was that the agency was too slow to alert the world of an emerging health threat in China and to move to contain its spread. Local newspapers had been reporting that a mysterious illness was spreading around Wuhan as early as November 17, 2019, a fact backed up by genetic analysis. But Chinese health authorities didnt alert the WHO which the country was required to do under a legal framework called the International Health Regulations to a spate of patients with an unknown pneumonia-like disease until December 31. By then, valuable time to contain the disease had been lost, though it is Beijing, not WHO, that is largely at fault for this lag. Still, while the WHO has limited if any power to compel China or any other country to act, the body should have been more proactive in November and December. WHO has country offices, WHO has relationships with Ministries of Health. I would argue they certainly should have been aware this was happening, said Ashish Jha, the dean of Brown Universitys School of Public Health and the White House Covid-19 response coordinator during the Biden administration. It was showing up in a lot of media, social media, and they should have pushed the government to say, what is this? What is going on here, and why dont we know more about it? Within five days of learning about the unusual cases in China, the WHO had alerted its member states. But the WHOs Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus traveled to China and, instead of confronting the government about its obfuscation, heralded Beijings response to the outbreak. And then the WHO consistently parrotted inaccurate information from the Chinese government namely that the virus was not spreading from person to person to the rest of the world for weeks. While the WHO proclaimed Covid-19 a public health emergency in late January, the messaging from the highest levels of WHO in those early months, when officials believed it was still possible that Covid could be contained, was too often confusing. For the moment, we are not witnessing sustained and intensive community transmission of this virus, and we are not witnessing large-scale severe disease or death, Ghebreyesus said during a briefing in late February. That was simply untrue. By that time, China had reported almost 80,000 cases and nearly 3,000 deaths from Covid-19, while 37 other countries were also reporting cases and deaths. It also took the WHO two years, until late 2021, to finally acknowledge that Covid-19 was airborne, despite the mountain of evidence that scientists had amassed just six months after the first cases. A WHO spokesperson pushed back against this. From January 2020, WHO said transmission was occurring between people when they breathe, talk (later sing) and especially in settings like hospitals, households and long term living facilities, a spokesperson told Vox by email. While some of this confusion stemmed from longstanding disagreement on what exactly constitutes airborne spread, as late as March 2020 the WHO was still confidently tweeting, FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne, even as people were being infected through the air. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at a daily press briefing on Covid-19 on March 11, 2020. Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty ImagesTrump has also repeatedly criticized the WHO for not fully investigating the theory that the Covid-19 virus originated from virological work in a laboratory in Wuhan, rather than the conventional explanation that it began in wild animals sold at a meat market. The WHO sent a team of investigators to China in 2021, but Chinese scientists refused to discuss the so-called lab leak theory and then pressured investigators to dismiss the possibility altogether, according to the lead scientist on the team. Again, though, the WHO has no authority to compel member states to turn over data or to cooperate on investigations. In fact, the WHO cannot even work inside a member state without that countrys permission. This is certainly a limitation of the WHO, but thats because it answers to its member states it is not some sort of supra-national health policy enforcement body. Beyond Covid, Trump has also griped that the WHO requires the US to make unfairly onerous payments, because US dues exceed the payment the organization demands of China, which has about four times the number of people as in the US. The WHO is funded in two ways. The first is through assessed contributions, essentially membership dues, that each WHO member state is required to pay each year. The United Nations has a process for determining how much each country owes, but its essentially based on a countrys gross domestic product (GDP), not its population size. US GDP in 2023 was about 1.5 times higher than Chinas. That year, the US was required to pay the WHO $218 million, about two times more than China was assessed. So while the US does pay more than China, that difference is almost, though not quite, proportional to GDP.Assessed contributions, however, make up less than 20 percent of the WHOs total funds. Its other funding comes from voluntary contributions from member states and non-governmental donors, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Here is where the US and China make vastly different contributions to the WHO. In 2023, China gave the organization about $40 million in voluntary contributions plus an additional $935,000 toward an emergency fund on top of its assessed contribution, while the US government donated more than $1 billion in voluntary funds and about $47 million toward the emergency fund. In all, that meant the US gave the WHO about $1.27 billion in 2023, about 18 percent of their total budget, while China gave about $156 million when you tally up all contributions. So while the US does give vastly more to the WHO than China, most of that is in voluntary donations. Of course, the US doesnt have to pull out of the WHO altogether to rectify this situation it could simply choose to donate less to the WHO, or mandate that its contributions come with reform. And the institution does need reform.Whos at fault at WHO, explained Covid wasnt the first time the WHO came under international fire. Take the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.The organization was criticized back in 2014 for its long delay in declaring the outbreak a public health emergency, which hindered swift containment measures that could have prevented the virus from spreading across borders. From the start, the WHO fundamentally underestimated the severity of the outbreak Ebola would go on to kill more than 11,000 people primarily in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, with scattered cases reported in the US and several European countries, too. It ultimately took the WHO and its partners two years to get the Ebola outbreak under control. Despite the number of deaths, Ebolas spread was limited largely because it isnt a respiratory disease like Covid-19; rather it spreads through direct contact with an infected persons bodily fluids. But that fact makes the failure to contain Ebola all the more glaring. To be fair, all outbreak and pandemic responses are chaotic, especially when an entirely novel virus like Covid starts spreading. New information is constantly emerging, and a lot of different individuals and institutions have to come together to coordinate the flow of information and the rollout of interventions or recommendations, even as the full picture of the outbreak is inevitably unclear. Outbreaks often happen in far-flung areas that lack health care workers, hospitals, laboratories, and even roads and internet. Cultural practices, economic conditions, and a preexisting lack of trust in politicians and health officials further complicate responses. A health worker waits to handle a new unconfirmed Ebola patient at a newly built Doctors Without Borders-supported Ebola treatment center on November 7, 2018, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. John Wessels/AFP/Getty ImagesThe WHO also came under fire for delaying the dissemination of vaccines to help curb an ongoing mpox outbreak which began in May 2022 and spread to more than 120 countries before the virus became largely confined to central and eastern Africa. In mid-2022, the US and EU approved an mpox vaccine made by the Danish pharmaceutical company Bavarian Nordic. But the WHO, which has its own process for reviewing and approving drugs and vaccines, did not approve the vaccine until September 2024.That delay mattered. For one, other organizations like UNICEF and Gavi that play a critical role in procuring and distributing vaccines in developing countries require WHO approval before they can move forward with vaccination campaigns. Many developing countries do not have or have only pared-down versions of drug regulatory agencies so they also rely on the WHO to approve medicines before they roll them out in their countries, explained Rogrio Gaspar, the director of WHOs Department of Regulation and Prequalification. And so when it came to the mpox vaccine, many countries especially in Africa, where the outbreak was most severe were waiting for the green light from WHO before they could roll out the needed vaccines, even though the US and Europe had already approved them.The WHO blames the long delay on Bavarian Nordic. The WHO claimed that the company did not submit the mpox vaccine for review until August 2024, some two years after the mpox outbreak had begun, and that once it did, the WHO approved it within two weeks, according to a WHO spokesperson. But Bavarian Nordic refutes this timeline. A spokesperson told Vox that the pharmaceutical company first met with WHO in August 2022 and submitted a dossier on the vaccine in May 2023. The dossier they submitted to the WHO contained the same information that led to the European Medicines Agency, the equivalent of the FDA, approving the vaccine for use in Europe. It isnt clear why the WHO didnt act sooner. Back in August 2024, the WHO director of health product policy and standards, Deusdedit Mubangizi, told reporters that there wasnt enough data to support its approval. But now, it seems, the WHO has changed its story, ducking accountability once again. The entire process has frustrated some public health experts. Its almost like WHO saying, hey, were not responsible for our own process, Jha said. This is the lack of accountability. Its everybody elses fault.(A WHO spokesperson pointed out that member states did not have to wait until the WHOs review was complete to buy and distribute the vaccines.)Over the years, the WHO has tried to address its critics through a laundry list of reform efforts and there has been some improvement. Between 2020 and 2022, smaller Ebola outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, and Guinea have been contained in just a few months. Thats a hopeful signal the organization has potentially improved not only its own ability to quickly respond to outbreaks, but has also helped build member states capacity to detect and contain health emergencies. It also helps that since 2014, scientists have also developed a number of vaccines and treatments that would certainly help quell an outbreak.Still, while there were improvements in the Ebola response that can be attributable to the WHO, the organizations dismal performance during the Covid-19 pandemic suggests that these reforms remain insufficient. And the bigger issue is that the WHO simply cannot admit its mistakes. The organization has still not come out and listed the errors it made during the Covid-19 pandemic. Though the WHO convened an independent panel of experts to review the international response to Covid-19, the panels reports largely focus on the failures of WHO member states and say little about the WHOs own shortcomings.There is very little interest at WHO in introspection, Jha said. Theres very little interest in WHO in figuring out how to do better. And given how enormous and how difficult the WHOs responsibilities are, that introspection is needed.The WHOs impossible taskThe WHOs mission is to foster global public health, but what that means in practice depends on what counts as global. As it stands, its 194 member states (193 without the US) have tasked the organization with outbreak prevention and response and other responsibilities that impact nearly all countries. That includes setting international health standards and collecting data on an ever-increasing list of health priorities ranging from maternal and child health and nutrition to sanitation and clean water. But some of the WHOs work focuses on supplementing national health programs and filling gaps that benefit individual nations specifically those with the least resources rather than the world as a whole.Those responsibilities fit poorly with a Trump administration that is bringing an America First approach to health and other countries are taking notice. Argentina has announced that it also plans to withdraw from the WHO, while Italian politicians have introduced legislation that would do the same. Other European countries have slashed global health aid budgets in recent years. That the US cannot remain a WHO member while also consciously putting itself first highlights a friction in the field. Is global health about containing dangerous outbreaks so they dont breach your own border and pose a threat to national security? Or is global health about saving lives and improving the health of everyone, regardless of their nationality? Can competing nation-states like China and the US set aside their political warfare and come together on one issue health or has the time for international cooperation finally ended?One way to address that contradiction would be for the WHO to scale back on the number of health areas it is involved in and focus primarily on issues that actually transcend borders. This would include infectious diseases but only those that present a truly global threat. The WHO itself puts together a list of pathogens with the potential to cause a pandemic. It includes familiar diseases such as West Nile, Zika, Ebola, and Covid-19. Many of these have already caused deadly outbreaks and pandemics. Something else that transcends borders: products such as cigarettes or baby formula. The WHO might also have a role to play in regulating the safety of these products, according to Jesse Bump, a public health professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.This recommendation is not to say that newborn and maternal health or access to clean water are not important, life-saving services that everyone on Earth should have. But these represent more national health priorities for the countries dealing with these issues and not truly global threats. Without some form of additional support, paring down the WHOs focus areas would have fatal consequences for some places. Particularly in low-income countries, the WHO serves as a lifeline of essential health services and often fills many of the responsibilities that national health agencies in wealthy nations like the US handle, a WHO spokesperson explained.Of course, the fact that the WHO is tasked with addressing so many different areas of health fundamentally reflects both the massive health disparities around the world and the way the organization is funded. Consider the health challenges that a country like the US faces compared to many developing countries. In places like Niger, Papua New Guinea, Chad, and the DRC, more than half of the population does not have access to clean drinking water or basic water services. More than 50 percent of people in Somalia and Haiti are malnourished. In southern Africa, HIV is still a leading cause of death; in parts of West Africa, malaria is a leading cause of death. In much of the global north, by contrast, these health challenges are virtually nonexistent, and where they are present, its because of national priorities, not a lack of national resources. Consider as well the drastic difference in the health workforce around the world. In many low- and middle-income counties, there are major shortages of doctors and nurses, not to mention specialists such as neurologists or surgeons. In more than 50 countries, mostly in Africa and the Middle East, there are fewer than one doctor per 1,000 people in the entire country. The US has almost four times as many doctors per capita.What this means is that the state of health and health care is so grossly unequal across countries that one organization cannot possibly address them all while also ensuring that every member states benefits equally from their WHO membership. And the benefits are unequal, at least in strict financial terms. Last year, countries in Africa and the WHOs Eastern Mediterranean region which includes parts of North Africa and the Middle East including some very poor and conflict-afflicted member states such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Sudan received $2.9 billion, almost half of the WHOs $6.8 billion budget. The region of the Americas, which includes the US, received the least amount of funding, just over $300 million. But even here, its important to understand that the inequality in who gives and who gets from the WHO is largely a function of the fact that some regions and countries simply have a massively greater need for international aid. Its important to remember that the WHO has limited control over its own agenda. It is member states themselves who vote on the organizations scope of work and approve its budget. Beyond the required payments, countries and other donors can earmark their voluntary funds for specific causes. The US, for instance, earmarks more than half of its funds for epidemic prevention or response and polio eradication while Nordic countries typically focus their funding on maternal health. This approach to funding helps the WHO account for individual member state priorities but also allows countries to use funds to influence the WHOs scope of work. Ultimately, it means that the WHO has little choice but to expand and scatter its workforce to make sure every countrys pet projects get completed. Is there any room for WHO in America First?Short of remaking the WHO into an institution under the leadership of the US government, its difficult to imagine that any amount of reform will satisfy the current administration. The organizations mission is completely misaligned with Trumps America First agenda. In the WHO, as in most other UN international bodies, America does not come first. It has the same vote as every other member state, even though the US contributes more money than any other country. But despite its many shortcomings, the US needs the WHO. Only an international health agency such as the WHO can overcome the nuanced complexities of economic competition, geopolitics, and even outright war, to respond to global health emergencies. The WHO serves as a bridge for sharing information and even biological samples of pathogens, which is critical for understanding how a disease will spread and for developing medicines and vaccines.Trumps vision of global health or public health, for that matter, is unclear. Just as unclear is whether Trumps executive order on the WHO is even legal. Members of Congress have asked Trump to reconsider. Though the full impact of the US withdrawal will probably not be felt for about a year, the WHOs director-general has already ordered a hiring freeze, mandated that some contracts be renegotiated, and directed staff in country offices to provide only essential support. As the WHO adapts to a future without US investment, the Trump administration is also gutting other key global health efforts. This month, thousands of USAID staff were laid off, leaving only about 300 employees of a once 10,000-person workforce. It isnt yet clear what global health areas the drastically smaller agency will work on or whether it will exist at all and it wouldnt be surprising if the administration goes after other global health initiatives like the ones led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. American retreat from both the WHO and its own broader global health efforts paradoxically makes the case for WHO reform all the more important. Many complaints about how the WHO does its work are valid, especially given its reluctance to confront mistakes. But much of what it is criticized for is built into the way the institution itself operates or reflects a world with hugely varying health problems and national abilities to meet them. Still, the WHO must do better because it is the only organization uniquely placed to bridge diplomatic tensions and address international health threats. The most hopeful read on Trumps action will shock the bureaucracy into action, and lead the Trump administration to ultimately realize that an American-first approach must include the WHO. Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

Rainbow Six Siege X is not quite a sequel but a major evolution from UbisoftMichael BeckwithPublished February 17, 2025 10:58amUpdated February 17, 2025 10:58am Rainbow Six Siege will continue as normal through 2025, but a new future awaits it (Ubisoft)There might never be a Rainbow Six Siege 2 but the closest thing to it is happening soon, as Ubisoft reveal plans for the games next 10 years.Ubisofts plan to triple down on live service games feels a little misguided considering the year its just had. Skull And Bones didnt make much of an impact after it finally launched, XDefiant got shut down in June, and we bet you forgot the company cancelled its planned The Division spin-off, Heartland.Aside from entirely new projects, Ubisoft is also trying to breathe new life into one of the few successful live service game it already has: Rainbow Six Siege.That game has been going strong for 10 years and, much like Overwatch 2 and Counter-Strike 2, Rainbow Six Siege is now set to get its own sequel, that isnt really a sequel at all.There were rumours of a Rainbow Six Siege 2 floating around earlier this month, with claims that it would be announced during the Six Invitational 2025 esports competition.The invitational wrapped up over the weekend and during the proceedings, creative director Alex Karpazis and game director Joshua Mills took to the stage to confirm Rainbow Six Siege X is indeed a thing and will serve as the basis for the game for the next decade.However, Mills was keen to stress that Siege X isnt a sequel nor another update, but a major evolution, telling the crowd: Were expanding and reinforcing the very foundation of Siege to ensure it remains the pinnacle of tactical PvP first-person shooters.Ubisoft didnt have any footage to share, beyond a short and vague teaser, but Mills has said Siege X will bring major graphical and audio upgrades, refined game feel, and new ways to enjoy the game, all while staying true to what makes the core of Siege so special.This seems to make it the inverse of Counter-Strike 2, which, despite the name, fans dont really regard as a sequel. Ubisoft has previous said, including as recently as last year, that Siege would never get a sequel, so thats why this isnt referred to as one.The idea of switching engines to something that can be off-the-shelf ready simply doesnt answer the needs of a really competitive and demanding game like Siege, said Karpazis at the time (via PC Gamer).Im not going to name names, but you see games that did go through sequels and just completely drop the ball because they have to remake every single thing that they did in that first game, he added, no doubt alluding to Overwatch 2 and its messy post-launch life.Dataminer firaxiswinning, who accurately claimed Siege X would be announced at the recent competition, has claimed the projects been in the works for the last few years.More TrendingIf so, then this hasnt been a spur of the moment decision born from Ubisofts lacklustre 2024 and the team will hopefully have learned the right lessons from the backlashes Overwatch 2 and Counter-Strike 2 saw.Its not known when Siege X will actually arrive, but considering the current version of the game is getting a tenth year of content for 2025 (which is covered on Ubisofts website), it suggests Siege X wont be out until 2026 at the earliest.Either way, players wont have to wait much longer for answers since a proper reveal is happening on March 13, during a special three hour long livestream.Its too soon to tell if Siege X will prove to be the win Ubisoft needs, but its not the only basket the companys putting all its eggs in. Ubisoft is similarly eager to keep pushing more open world games and no doubt has extremely high expectations for next months Assassins Creed Shadows and the rumoured Far Cry 7. Did Ubisoft take naming tips from Elon Musk? (Ubisoft)Emailgamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below,follow us on Twitter, andsign-up to our newsletter.To submit Inbox letters and Readers Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use ourSubmit Stuff page here.For more stories like this,check our Gaming page.GameCentralSign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content.This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

By Isaac Schultz Published February 17, 2025 | Comments (0) | The X-59's Mach diamonds during maximum afterburner testing. Photo: Lockheed Martin/Gary Tice NASA just wrapped engine performance tests on its X-59 research aircraft, which the space agency hopes will prove a means of mitigating supersonic aircrafts odious sonic booms. NASA and Lockheed Martin ran the tests between October and February on the single modified F414-GE-100 engine that will power the aircraft and its subsystems. We have successfully progressed through our engine ground tests as we planned, said Raymond Castner, X-59 propulsion lead at NASAs Glenn Research Center, in an agency release. We were getting smooth and steady airflow as predicted from wind tunnel testing. We didnt have any structural or excessive vibration issues. And parts of the engine and aircraft that needed cooling were getting it. When planes exceed Mach 1 (the speed of sound, or about 767 miles per hour1,234 kilometers/hour for those using the metric system) they produce a loudcrack, the sound of air pressure waves combining to form a shock wave produced by the planes extreme speed. That sounda sonic boomcan startle people on the ground and even shatter windows, which led the Federal Aviation Administration to prohibit the supersonic flight of non-military aircraft over land in 1973. Commercial supersonic travel has not seen its heyday since the flight of the Concorde, which, though fashionable, was neither fuel-efficient nor economical to operate and generated plenty of noise complaints from cities it flew over. The Concordes final flight took place in 2003.NASA also released some pretty neat footage of the tests, which you can check out below. First, the X-59 team tested out the aircrafts hydraulics and its electrical and environmental control systems. Then they performed throttle checks and fired the aircrafts afterburners to the max (as seen in the image at top). Those patterns seen in the plume are known as shock diamondsstanding wave patterns formed by the compression and expansion of exhaust gases as they exit a rocket nozzle at supersonic speeds. The X-59 first rolled out of its hangar in Palmdale, California, in January 2024. The big reveal was a spectacle: A 99-foot-long (30-meter) plane standing at just 14 feet (4.27 m) tall and 29.5 feet (9 m) wide, looking every inch a needle that is meant to cut through the air with minimal disruption. The planes stiletto-like design is completely the point (no pun intended): Its slenderness should reduce the pressure change that flows over the ground, reducing what is ordinarily a sonic boom into a sonic thump. One NASA engineer compared the X-59s sound to that of a car door being shut. To that end, the X-59s engine is mounted on top of the aircraft, which reduces the amount of noise from the plane that reaches the ground. Booms demonstrator aircraft on its record-breaking flight. Photo: Boom Supersonic / YouTube Efforts to resurrect supersonic travel are also coming from the private sector. In late January, the aerospace company Boom Supersonic flew its experimental aircraft (the XB-1 demonstrator) faster than sound for the first time, achieving the feat three times in that flight.The X-59s cruise altitude will be 55,000 feet (16,764 m) and is designed to hit speeds of 925 miles per hour (1,489 kilometers per hour). NASA did not offer an updated timeline for the planes long-anticipated first flight in their recent release (the plane was originally scheduled to make that flight last year), but the release stated that more tests are still required. Specifically, tests to check for electromagnetic interference and how the aircraft handles data in normal and failure conditions. Lastly, taxi tests will be carried outobviously a crucial test to perform given the ultimate goal of making this plane operational.Once NASA flies the X-59 for the first time, the agency will put the plane through a series of tests that explore how the aircrafts so-called sonic thump is actually experienced on the ground. These demonstrations will run through 2027though that timeline will likely depend on when the jet actually gets airborne.Daily NewsletterYou May Also Like By Passant Rabie Published February 12, 2025 By Passant Rabie Published February 11, 2025 By Passant Rabie Published February 10, 2025 By Passant Rabie Published February 8, 2025 By Isaac Schultz Published February 8, 2025 By Passant Rabie Published February 7, 2025

Qatar to Establish Permanent National Pavilion in the Giardini at La Biennale di Venezia, Debuting with Exhibition for Biennale Architettura 2025Save this picture!Yasmeen Lari, Community Center, Doha, 2024,. Image Courtesy of Qatar MuseumsQatar has announced that it will establish a permanent national pavilion in the Giardini della Biennale, the historic venue of La Biennale di Venezia since 1895. With this addition, Qatar becomes one of only 31 countries with a permanent pavilion in the Giardini, joining a select group of nations with dedicated exhibition spaces. Only two new national pavilions have opened there in the past 50 years, including Australia in 1988 and the Republic of Korea in 1996. The new Qatar Pavilion will serve as a lasting platform for showcasing the country's artistic and architectural contributions, with rotating exhibitions presented during each edition of the Biennale.For its inaugural presentation during the 19th International Architecture Exhibition La Biennale di Venezia (Biennale Architettura 2025), Qatar will present a two-part exhibition organized by the Future Art Mill Museum. The presentation will take place at both the new Qatar Pavilion in the Giardini and ACPPalazzo Franchetti. Central to the Qatar Pavilion will be Community Centre, an installation by acclaimed Pakistani architect Yasmeen Lari.Save this picture!The work will explore themes of community and shared spaces, aligning with the broader exhibition "Beyti Beytak. My home is your home. La mia casa la tua casa.," which investigates how hospitality and traditions of welcome manifest in contemporary architecture from the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia (MENASA). The exhibition will feature more than 20 architects from the MENASA region, presenting both modern pioneers and contemporary practitioners. Related Article 2025 Venice Architecture Biennale: Over 750 Participants Researching How Architecture Adapts to the Future Among the modern architects are Raj Rewal from India, Nayyar Ali Dada from Pakistan, Abdel Wahed El Wakil from Egypt, and Minnette de Silva from Sri Lanka. Their work will be shown alongside contemporary voices such as Marina Tabassum and Nabil Haque from Bangladesh, Sameep Padora and Vastu Shilpa from India, Daaz Studio from Iran, Abeer Seikaly from Jordan, Sumaya Dabbagh from the UAE, Liz Diller from the USA, Meriem Shabani from Iran, and New South Studio from France.Save this picture!The announcement of Qatar's permanent pavilion follows the signing of a Protocol of Cooperation between Qatar Museums and the Municipality of Venice in June 2024, an agreement that aims to foster long-term cultural exchange between Qatar, Venice, and Italy. La Biennale di Venezia is the world's pre-eminent gathering in art and architecture, and the Giardini is the historic landscape where extraordinary pavilions stand as ambassadors for their nations. Qatar is proud to take its place in this international assembly, advancing our role in cultural diplomacy and providing a platform for creative voices from Qatar and the MENASA region. -- Her Excellency Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani Save this picture!We invite you to check out ArchDaily's comprehensive coverage of the 2025 Venice Biennale.Image gallerySee allShow lessAbout this authorNour FakharanyAuthorCite: Nour Fakharany. "Qatar to Establish Permanent National Pavilion in the Giardini at La Biennale di Venezia, Debuting with Exhibition for Biennale Architettura 2025" 17 Feb 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1026989/qatar-to-establish-permanent-national-pavilion-in-the-giardini-at-la-biennale-di-venezia-debuting-with-exhibition-for-biennale-architettura-2025&gt ISSN 0719-8884Save!ArchDaily?You've started following your first account!Did you know?You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream

Nature, Published online: 17 February 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-00457-wThe famed 1975 conference about a controversial genetic technology is feted as an example of how scientific self-regulation works. But more significant is what wasnt discussed.