Black holes — the supermassive gravitation forces at the center of most galaxies — actually spend much of their time dormant, or essentially asleep. Astronomers have now spotted one not only waking up but appearing to hit the celestial equivalent of a snooze button every few days. The black hole at the center of a galaxy named SDSS1335+0728, about 300 million light-years away, first showed signs of stirring when, in 2019, the galaxy started shining brightly. But since 2024, that black hole the astronomers nicknamed “Ansky” started producing X-ray bursts at regular intervals — almost as if Ansky was stretching, then going back to sleep for a bit, according to a paper in the journal Nature Astronomy. Rare Black Hole AwakeningObserving a black hole rising into action is relatively rare. Capturing the regular bursts of energy called quasiperiodic eruptions (QPEs) is rarer still. “And this is the first time we have observed such an event in a black hole that seems to be waking up,” Lorena Hernández-García, an astronomer at Valparaiso University, Chile, and an author of the paper, said in a press release.They certainly have a good view. Multiple X-ray space telescopes are checking in on Ansky, including XMM-Newton and NASA’s NICER, Chandra, and NASA’s Swift. After the first observed emission, they consulted archive data from another instrument but didn’t find any evidence of earlier emissions. Understanding Black Hole MechanicsThese observations could alter understandings of how black holes work — or, at least, what causes QPEs. Conventional wisdom is that a black hole’s powerful gravity sucks in any object that dares venture too close, then rips that matter apart. That captured matter then spreads into a hot, bright, rapidly spinning flat circular object called an accretion disc.QPEs are thought to occur when another object — say a star or a smaller black hole — interacts with that disc. But so far, there is no evidence that Ansky has destroyed a star.The astronomers who first captured and are now monitoring Ansky’s behavior are now considering other scenarios. For instance, the disc could be formed by gas captured by the flares that would be coming from shocks in the disc, caused by a small celestial object repeatedly traveling through — thus disrupting the orbiting material.Brighter, Longer BurstsThere are other clues that Ansky’s bursts aren’t produced by conventionally understood forces. Ansky’s periodic X-ray bursts last 10 times longer and shine 10 times brighter than a typical QPE.“For QPEs, we’re still at the point where we have more models than data, and we need more observations to understand what's happening,” Erwan Quintin, a European Space Agency research fellow and an author of the study, said in a press release. “We thought that QPEs were the result of small celestial objects being captured by much larger ones and spiraling down towards them. Ansky’s eruptions seem to be telling us a different story.”Astronomers will try to better understand that story by watching the rare phenomenon unfold. Future ESA missions may also help the astronomers learn more about the gravitational waves associated with the X-ray bursts.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Before joining Discover Magazine, Paul Smaglik spent over 20 years as a science journalist, specializing in U.S. life science policy and global scientific career issues. He began his career in newspapers, but switched to scientific magazines. His work has appeared in publications including Science News, Science, Nature, and Scientific American.

One of the most important parts of living a healthy lifestyle is getting a good night’s sleep. Quality sleep can prevent illness, reduce stress, and enhance cognitive function, just to name a few. A research team working with the Baycrest Corporate Centre for Geriatric Care has now added a new benefit to the list: unlocking the brain’s ability to sort memories. According to a study published in Nature Human Behaviour, sustained deep sleep not only safeguards against memory decline but also increases the brain’s ability to process memory. Sleep and Long-Term MemoriesIt’s long been known that the quality of our sleep is directly related to our cognitive function. These new findings strengthen this connection and are the first to uncover that sleeping not only assists in making memories but can enhance our memories, too. The memory enhancement revealed through this study is what’s known as sequential memory. This involves remembering the events of our lives in the correct order in which they happened. Being able to reminisce about the details of your wedding day or recall a tumultuous encounter with a friend is all thanks to sequential memory. According to researchers, even a single night of deep sleep can have long-lasting effects on sequential memory.“The benefits of sleep on memory are powerful; just one night makes a difference that persists over a year,” said Brian Levine, Senior Scientist at the Rotman Research Institute, part of the Baycrest Academy for Research and Education, in a press release.Studying Memory and SleepTypical memory studies often involve asking participants to memorize items, like words and pictures, within a controlled lab setting. This new study, run by Levine and assisted by Rotman graduate students, differed from the norm and involved a unique approach to studying memory.Instead of memorizing cue cards of words and pictures, participants were immersed in a real-world experience. They were given a 20-minute audio-guided tour of artworks displayed around Baycrest, a research and teaching hospital located in Toronto, Canada. After completing the tour, participants had their memory of the tour tested. They were asked questions about the physical features of the artwork and the order in which the artwork was shown. These questions were asked five different times over a span of one hour to 15 months after the tour.The whole experience was then repeated on a second group of participants, with some tweaks. The new group was randomly divided into two subgroups, known as the “sleep group” and the “wake group.” The wake group completed the tour and their first memory test in the morning, then repeated that same test in the evening after a day of regular activities.For the sleep group, they completed the tour and their first test in the evening, then had their second memory test in the morning after a night of electroencephalographic (EEG) brain-monitoring sleep in a sleep lab. Both groups also participated in the same memory tests one week, one month, and 15 months after the initial tour.Long-Term Memory RecallThe researchers found that the sleep group had an evidently higher performance in sequential memory than the wake group, even after 15 months. This suggests that a single night of sleep significantly enhances long-term brain function and memory recall.The results of this study help solidify the importance of quality sleep and could help provide insight into the potential cause of memory changes in dementia patients.  “While our memory for features such as object size and color declines over time, sleep can improve our memory for event sequence,” Levine said in a press release. “This study deepens our understanding of how critical sleep is for integrating experiences into memory.”Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article: Nature Human Behaviour. Sleep selectively and durably enhances memory for the sequence of real-world experiencesAs the marketing coordinator at Discover Magazine, Stephanie Edwards interacts with readers across Discover's social media channels and writes digital content. Offline, she is a contract lecturer in English & Cultural Studies at Lakehead University, teaching courses on everything from professional communication to Taylor Swift, and received her graduate degrees in the same department from McMaster University. You can find more of her science writing in Lab Manager and her short fiction in anthologies and literary magazine across the horror genre.

Humans love to take liberties when we talk about our heights. But Afruca tangeri fiddler crabs don’t have that luxury. Looking and listening in on the members of this species as they tried to attract mates, a team of researchers found that the males’ mating songs are shaped by their size, and are thus accurate signals of their fitness as mates, according to a press release, at least from the perspective of female fiddler crabs.Publishing their findings in a study in the Journal of Experimental Biology, the researchers say that their results reveal what information male fiddler crabs share in their songs, as well as how well they share it.Conveying Size Through SongScuttling around the noisy seashores of the Southern Iberian Peninsula, A. tangeri males court A. tangeri females through songs of seismic vibrations, by drumming or hitting the sand with their oversized claws or shells. But little is known about what, exactly, these seismic vibrations convey and how effectively they convey it next to the noisy sea. Setting out to learn more, a team of researchers from the University of Oxford’s Animal Vibration Lab recorded male fiddler crabs as they produced their seismic signals. Using GoPro cameras and geophones, which measured the percussive vibrations that the crabs produced in the sand, the team revealed that the seismic signals differed depending on whether the males drummed the sand with their claws or hit the sand with their shells. Much more intriguingly, the researchers also found that the seismic songs differed depending on the males’ morphology, allowing the females to accurately size up the males from far away.“It appears as though the males cannot, or do not, lie about their physical size,” said Tom Mulder, a study author and a biologist at the Animal Vibration Lab, according to the release. “Females can rely on the loudness of seismic signals to honestly assess a potential mate’s quality, all without needing to see him.”Read More: Understanding How Whales CommunicateThe Complicated Steps of Fiddler Crab CourtshipThroughout their study, the researchers’ GoPros and geophones allowed them to record the complicated steps of fiddler crab courtship. First, the males waved their oversized claws in the air. Second, they alternated between drumming the sand and hitting the sand with their claws and shells. Third, they performed both behaviors simultaneously. And fourth, they scrambled into their burrows and drummed the sand there, if and only if a female seemed interested. Recording vibrations for over 8,000 of these fiddler flirtations in total, the researchers found that the length, the loudness, and the rhythm of the crabs’ seismic signals differed depending on the crabs’ behavior — whether the crabs were drumming with their claws or hitting with their shells, for instance — allowing their behaviors to be differentiated based on their vibrations alone.Also shaping the males’ songs were their morphologies, with larger and smaller claws producing higher-energy and lower-energy seismic signals, respectively. “Larger claws have the advantage of overcoming seismic noise so that they can signal to females that are further away,” said Beth Mortimer, another study author and a biologist at the Animal Vibration Lab, according to the release. “However, the advantages are only observed for the percussive signals such as drumming and fortunately for smaller clawed crabs, these are only part of the courtship routine.”According to the team, the percussive signals of these crabs are advantageous for males, allowing them to attract females next to the sounds of the sea. But they’re also beneficial for females, too, making sure that the males they meet actually measure up. Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Journal of Experimental Biology. Constraints on Percussive Seismic Signals in a Noisy Environment by European Fiddler Crabs, Afruca tangeri Sam Walters is a journalist covering archaeology, paleontology, ecology, and evolution for Discover, along with an assortment of other topics. Before joining the Discover team as an assistant editor in 2022, Sam studied journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

(Image Credit: DC Studio/Shutterstock) NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsBack in 1950, Alan Turing proposed an elegantly simple yet profoundly challenging way to determine whether machines could be said to "think." Known as the Turing Test, this measure of machine intelligence sets humans and machines in conversational competition, challenging human judges to distinguish between artificial and genuine intelligence through text-based interactions. Despite numerous attempts, no artificial system had ever convincingly passed this test. Until now.Cameron Jones and Benjamin Bergen from the University of California, San Diego, have gathered for the first time empirical evidence that OpenAI’s GPT-4.5, a sophisticated large language model (LLM), has successfully passed the Turing Test. Not only did GPT-4.5 pass, but under specific conditions, it outperformed human counterparts in convincing participants of its humanity.The work has significant implications for society, ethics and humanity’s understanding of intelligence itself.Human v MachineThe Turing Test pits an interrogator against two conversational partners — one human and one machine — engaging both simultaneously via text. The interrogator's task is simple: to decide which conversational partner is human. But despite rapid advancements in computational linguistics and machine learning, AI systems have consistently failed this seemingly straightforward challenge.To take the test, Jones and Bergen recruited 284 participants from diverse backgrounds, including undergraduate students and paid crowd-sourced workers from Prolific, a tech company that employs humans to take part in AI-related experiments. The researchers pitted several contemporary AI models against humans — including GPT-4o, LLaMa-3.1-405B, and GPT-4.5. Interestingly, GPT-4.5 emerged as the winner but only when instructed to adopt a "humanlike persona." In those conversations, GPT-4.5 was judged to be the human 73% of the time: significantly more often than interrogators selected the real human participant, say Jones and Bergen, highlighting a remarkable shift in AI’s ability to emulate human conversation.The researchers also used an older rule-based chatbot called ELIZA to generate text and this was readily identified as a machine by the judges. Similarly, GPT-4o, a previous generation model, also significantly underperformed, chosen as human in just 21% of cases. "The results constitute the first empirical evidence that any artificial system passes a standard three-party Turing test," say Jones and Bergen.Jones and Bergen attribute part of GPT4.5’s success to the careful crafting of prompts designed to guide the model into adopting a persona that humans find relatable and convincingly authentic — specifically, a persona of an introverted young person fluent in internet slang and culture. GPT4.5’s ability to do this, say the researchers, demonstrates nuanced command over language patterns and interactive subtleties previously thought uniquely human."It is arguably the ease with which LLMs can be prompted to adapt their behavior to different scenarios that makes them so flexible: and apparently so capable of passing as human," say Jones and Bergen. This adaptability, rather than being a weakness, is precisely what underscores their emerging intelligence.Of course, the work also raises the thorny question of whether the Turing Test is measuring intelligence at all or just measuring the ability to pass the test. Either way, the success of GPT-4.5 challenges the conventional wisdom that genuine intelligence must include conscious awareness or deep comprehension. It may even prompt a reevaluation of the criteria used to define cognitive abilities and intellect.Evolving IntelligenceThat’s an impressive result with significant ethical, economic and social implications. "Models with this ability to robustly deceive and masquerade as people could be used for social engineering or to spread misinformation," say the researchers, warning of the potential misuse of “counterfeit humans” in politics, marketing and cybersecurity.But there is also a clear upside, albeit with important caveats. Better conversational agents could significantly enhance human-computer interactions, improve automated services, virtual assistance, companionship and educational tools. Achieving a balance between utility and risk will probably require carefully considered regulation.The work may also force humans to change how they interact with each other. Jones and Bergen imagine a greater cultural emphasis on authentic human interaction, spurred by the ubiquity of capable AI counterparts. This blurring of the distinction between machines and humans would surely have fascinated even Turing himself.Ref: Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test : arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674artificial intelligence1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as $1.99!SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In

It might be time to grant the monkeypox virus a new name. Although the virus (mpox for short) was first detected in lab monkeys in 1958, the original host or reservoir has remained unknown. Identifying the reservoir is crucial, because it gives epidemiologists targets to help control outbreaks. For the monkeypox virus, experts need to shield people from the fire-footed rope squirrel (Funisciurus pyrropus), which lives in the forests of West and Central Africa.Mystery Monkeypox SourceA team of scientists first posted a paper describing their findings on the preprint server Research Square. The researchers pinpointed the mpox source as the bushy-tailed rodent by observing a group of wild sooty mangabeys (Cercocebus atys) in Taï National Park (Côte d’Ivoire). In early 1993, about a third of the observed group there was infected by the virus and four infants died.The scientists scoured the primates’ hunting area and eventually found an mpox-infected fire rope squirrel carcass less than 2 miles from the mangabey territory. They sequenced mpox genomes from both monkey and squirrel and found them identical. Next, they pored through old video records of the primates recorded in the park and found footage of a mangabey eating one of the squirrels. Finally, they examined fecal samples from the monkeys prior to the outbreak. Two contained DNA from the squirrel and one also tested positive for mpox.Human to Human Monkeypox TransmissionThe virus, while concerning, didn’t spread far or fast enough to create much of an uproar — probably because transmission was rare, and thought to be only animal to human. That changed when evidence emerged of human-to-human transmission.It was also largely contained until then, when, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, mpox was documented in over 80 countries outside of Africa, with U.S. cases being reported in all 50 states. In June of 2024, the World Health Organization issued a warning. Soon after, The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its own travel warning to countries might be susceptible to the virus.A History of Monkeypox and SmallpoxIronically, the rise of mpox could be at least partially attributed to the success of earlier vaccination efforts. After smallpox was largely eradicated through shots, monkeypox slowly became a factor; the smallpox vaccine was at least partially effective in stopping mpox. However, mpox is far less deadly than smallpox.History shows that smallpox first arose around 1000 B.C. in Egypt and India. It was estimated to kill about 30 percent of the people it infected. Survivors were often left blind, scarred or disfigured. Even though, by the late 1940s, the U.S. had come close to wiping out the disease here, there were still 10-15 million cases globally, meaning millions a year were still dying from the disease. By the time world health officials claimed to have beat the virus it had killed more people over 3,000 years than any other known disease, including The Plague.Even though monkeypox is far less deadly than smallpox, knowing where it originates from will help scientists contain, control, and perhaps ultimately eradicate it.This article is not offering medical advice and should be used for informational purposes onlyArticle SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Before joining Discover Magazine, Paul Smaglik spent over 20 years as a science journalist, specializing in U.S. life science policy and global scientific career issues. He began his career in newspapers, but switched to scientific magazines. His work has appeared in publications including Science News, Science, Nature, and Scientific American.

We’ve all been there: You’re hanging with a group of friends (either in real time or virtual), and one casually mentions doing something with the other — but neither explicitly mentions you. You’re faced with a dilemma. Inviting yourself when you’re not wanted could come off as intrusive at best, rude at worst. And not inviting yourself will leave you left out and feeling rejected.A new study now should put such anxieties to rest. In such situations, you’re more welcome than you think, according to an article in Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin. The Psychology Behind RejectionJulian Givi, a West Virginia University professor and an author of the study, first became interested in this issue when he explored the other side of rejection. He conducted a study that explored how hosts feel when a potential guest declines an invitation. The result? A “no” was far less psychologically devastating to the host than the potential guest estimated. In both cases, Givi wanted to understand not just the responses and their ramifications but the thought processes behind them. To pursue a solid, scientifically valid result, he conducted eight studies with several thousand participants.Thought Process Behind Informal InvitationsIn the first study, 340 participants were asked to remember scenarios from the last five years where they were either directly invited or “self-invited” to join a social activity. They described how they felt in each situation. Then, researchers analyzed the text of their responses with software. Later studies constructed role-playing scenarios where participants used structured scenarios to isolate specific psychological factors. Participants were randomly assigned roles as either “potential self-inviters” or “plan-holders.” Then they were asked to imagine situations where a mutual friend mentioned a plan but didn’t explicitly invite them or a situation when another person asked them along. Researchers then measured how irritated or annoyed they thought the other participants would be if they tagged along.The findings consistently found that potential self-inviters were less likely to attend than what the plan holders across studies said they would prefer. This held true even when the plan-holders had invited the self-inviter to past events or when they made efforts to ease logistical obstacles. Making Social AssumptionsThe researchers discovered that potential self-inviters made two common assumptions. First, they overestimated how annoyed the plan holder would be if the self-inviters asked to join. Second, they wrongly believed that the plan holders had considered inviting them and then decided not to, which felt like a form of social rejection. In reality, the people making plans often hadn’t thought about inviting others at all.So, why do people hold back from asking to join? The research pointed to two major factors. First, they incorrectly worried that the plan holders had thought about inviting them but decided to actively reject them.Such assumptions are based more on psychological phenomena like egocentrism. That leads to practices where self-inviters essentially try to mind-read the planners, then “…potential self-inviters exaggerate the likelihood that plan-holders had already considered inviting them but decided against it," the study said.The authors add that there are some exceptions, like formal situations. If you are not invited to a wedding, it's generally a good idea not to crash it.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin. Self-Invitation Hesitation: How and Why People Fail to Ask to Join the Plans of OthersAmerican Psychology Association. Saying no: The negative ramifications from invitation declines are less severe than we think.Before joining Discover Magazine, Paul Smaglik spent over 20 years as a science journalist, specializing in U.S. life science policy and global scientific career issues. He began his career in newspapers, but switched to scientific magazines. His work has appeared in publications including Science News, Science, Nature, and Scientific American.

Modern rhinos aren’t Nebraskan animals. And they aren’t North American animals, either. But millions of years ago, rhinos were. In the Middle Miocene, Teleoceras major rhinos lived across Nebraska and across much of North America, too.Analyzing an assembly of T. major remains, which were buried in volcanic ash in northeastern Nebraska around 12 million years ago, a team of researchers recently revealed that these rhinos lived relatively social and sedentary lives. In fact, as reported in a study in Scientific Reports, the team’s results suggest that these rhinos lived in huge non-migratory herds. “I am not surprised that the analyses very strongly suggest that [T. major] lived in herds given that this animal resembles [the] modern hippopotamus in form,” said John Payne, a biologist who works with rhinos and was not involved in the study, according to a press release. “Hippos live in herds of several tens of animals — with several herds in one geographical area.”Ancient Rhino Remains Found in AshfallBack in 1971, a team of researchers stumbled across a massive assemblage of bones — what appeared to be the remains of over 100 T. major rhinos. Found in Nebraska’s Ashfall Fossil Beds, the remains were discovered around a dried waterhole and were apparently buried by ash after an eruption of the Yellowstone volcano in Wyoming around 12 million years ago. But what wasn’t apparent, however, was why so many animals were found together in the same spot. Were the rhinos there because they were fleeing from the volcano? Were they there because they were seeking shelter and just so happened to meet with other members of their same species? Or were they already together — already in the area as a single herd — when the volcano began spewing its ash?Hoping to find out, a team of researchers turned to the isotopes of the rhinos’ teeth, which carry signatures of their movements across the North American landscape. “We found they didn’t move very much,” said Clark Ward, a study author and a master’s graduate from the University of Cincinnati, according to the release. “We didn’t find evidence for seasonal migration or any evidence of a response to the disaster.”Built like barrels and equipped with short, stubby legs, it makes sense that T. major showed no signs of a seasonal migration or a volcanic response. They were shaped like hippos, which tend to stick to the same water systems, and they probably lived like hippos, too, spending more time in and around the water than traversing the land. Reconstructing Ancient Rhino LivesOf course, the fact that the rhinos didn’t move in response to the volcano meant they were met with the volcano’s ash. Indeed, the dust and debris from Yellowstone traveled the hundreds of miles to Nebraska, where it fell from above and for an extended period of time, even after the eruption was finished.“That ash would have covered everything: the grass, leaves, and water,” said Ward, now a graduate student at the University of Minnesota, according to the release. “The rhinos likely weren’t killed immediately like the people of Pompeii. Instead, it was much slower. They were breathing in the ash. And they likely starved to death.”Prior to the eruption, the rhinos fed on grasses, and it was the traces of those grasses that allowed the researchers to recreate their lifestyle. Indeed, the vegetation that the rhinos ate and the soil and bedrock that supported that vegetation shared similar ratios of carbon, oxygen, and strontium isotopes, and those isotopes made their way to the rhinos’ teeth during feeding. By assessing the ratios of isotopes that ended up in the rhinos’ teeth, the researchers were able to determine where the rhinos ate and, thus, where the rhinos lived. In addition to revealing the rhinos’ range, these isotopes also revealed several factors about the climate conditions that the animals encountered in their lives. While carbon isotopes told the researchers about the environment’s plants, oxygen and strontium isotopes told them about the environment’s precipitation and soil.“I’m honored and privileged to have my name in science attached to the site,” said Ward, who worked at the Ashfall Fossil Beds as an intern and who visited the beds as a child, according to the release. “As someone who used to go to Ashfall as a kid, it’s come full circle.”Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:University of Nebraska State Museum (Ashfall Fossil Beds). From Waterhole to Rhino BarnPalaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. Home on the Range: A Multi-Isotope Investigation of Ungulate Resource Partitioning at Ashfall Fossil Beds, Nebraska, USASam Walters is a journalist covering archaeology, paleontology, ecology, and evolution for Discover, along with an assortment of other topics. Before joining the Discover team as an assistant editor in 2022, Sam studied journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

The first full moon of spring, called the “Pink Moon,” will soon ascend in the night sky. Curious onlookers can expect to catch a glimpse of the full moon's peak at 8:22 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on April 12, 2025, yet the lack of a rosy hue may leave many people perplexed. The Pink Moon is significant for many reasons, but its color is not one of them; despite the vibrant name, the Pink Moon is not actually pink. Find out the true reason for this full moon’s colorful moniker, as well as the aspects that make it a springtime spectacle to look forward to. Why Is It Called the Pink Moon?The Pink Moon was given its name to represent the bloom of the creeping phlox (otherwise known as moss pink), a flowering plant that blankets much of the eastern and central U.S. from April through early May. This moon, just like the full moons of other months, is rooted in Native American naming traditions. The Pink Moon sports a few alternate names as well, including the Breaking Ice Moon (from Algonquin culture) and the Egg Moon (from Anglo-Saxon culture).This year’s Pink Moon also doubles as the Paschal full moon, which is used to set the date for Easter and is defined as the first full moon after the spring equinox (which occurred on March 20, 2025 in North America). Easter is celebrated on the Sunday following the Paschal full moon — since this month's full moon will appear on April 12, 2025, Easter will fall on April 20, 2025. Viewing a MicromoonThe Pink Moon may not change color, but it will exhibit another notable trait that will make it stand apart. The full moon will be a micromoon, making it somewhat smaller in appearance as it emerges in the sky. The change in size, though, is so slight that it may not be obvious at first glance. Regardless, the Pink Moon will have the distinction of being the smallest full moon of 2025.A micromoon’s reduced size is the result of the moon reaching its apogee, or its farthest point from Earth. The flip side of this phenomenon is a supermoon, which is when the moon reaches its perigee (its closest approach to Earth) and appears much larger in the sky. This year’s Pink Moon will be situated in the constellation Virgo, which can be easily found by tracking down Spica, the constellation’s brightest star and the 16th brightest star in the night sky. The star will manifest as a dot right near the full moon, but it may be difficult to spot with the naked eye, depending on the amount of light pollution around viewing locations. When to See the Pink MoonWhile the Pink Moon will peak and shine brightest on the evening of April 12, 2025 the window to catch its appearance will last longer than just one day; the moon will still appear full in the sky on Friday and Sunday. Following the Pink Moon's appearance, moon watchers will have to wait until May 12, 2025 to observe the next full moon — the Flower Moon.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:NASA. SupermoonsJack Knudson is an assistant editor at Discover with a strong interest in environmental science and history. Before joining Discover in 2023, he studied journalism at the Scripps College of Communication at Ohio University and previously interned at Recycling Today magazine.

If you’ve ever skimmed the ingredient list of your favorite snacks or drinks, you’ve probably stumbled across a string of unfamiliar words — potassium polyphosphate, acesulfame-K, sulphite ammonia caramel, and more — that offer little insight into what you’re actually eating.These food additives are used by manufacturers to boost flavor, texture, appearance, and shelf life. While many are naturally derived and individually tested for safety, recent research suggests that mixing multiple additives — as often happens in the preparation of processed foods — could lead to health risks that aren’t visible when looking at each ingredient by itself.A new study led by scientists from institutions such as Sorbonne Paris Nord University and Paris Cité University set out to investigate just that: how mixtures of food additives commonly found in everyday products may contribute to type 2 diabetes, a ever-growing metabolic disease tied to Western diets.Why Food Additives Are Raising Red FlagsIn the U.S., nearly 60 percent of daily dietary intake comes from ultra-processed foods. These foods are increasingly being linked to negative health outcomes, especially metabolic diseases like type 2 diabetes.To uncover what makes such processed foods so harmful, researchers are turning their attention to the additives tucked into long ingredient lists.Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tests the safety of each additive individually, newer experimental studies suggest that combinations of additives may impact health differently — potentially contributing to metabolic disorders, inflammation, and disruptions in gut microbiota. These “cocktail effects” can easily go unnoticed in single-substance safety tests.Using human cell models, French researchers demonstrated that mixtures of food additives can behave in unexpected and more toxic ways than individual substances alone. But to translate those findings into practical dietary advice, studies involving real people are needed.How Additives May Contribute to DiabetesTo explore potential links between additive combinations and type 2 diabetes, researchers analyzed data from nearly 100,000 adults in France who recorded their food intake and brand choices over several years. After seven years of follow-up, the team identified the most frequently consumed additive combinations and tracked who developed type 2 diabetes.Two of the five most common additive mixtures stood out. One included mostly emulsifiers, preservatives, and a dye (ingredients typically found in sauces and dairy-based desserts). The second included acidifiers, acid regulators, dyes, sweeteners, and more emulsifiers, often present in artificially sweetened beverages. Both mixtures were associated with a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.Further analysis revealed complex interactions among these additives. Some appeared to be synergistic (amplifying each other’s effects), while others seemed to be antagonistic (counteracting one another), suggesting that their health impact changes significantly when they’re consumed together.Implications for Public HealthThis study was the first of its kind to assess long-term exposure to real-world combinations of food additives in a large population, and to link these mixtures with the risk of type 2 diabetes. The findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that the health effects of ultra-processed foods may be driven not just by individual ingredients, but by how those ingredients interact.While further studies are needed to fully understand these interactions and explore links with other health issues, the message is clear: Food additives don’t exist in a vacuum, and their combined effects may be greater than the sum of their parts.“This observational study alone is not sufficient to establish a causal link. However, our findings are in line with recent in vitro experimental work suggesting possible cocktail effects. They indicate that the evaluation of additives should take into account their interactions and support public health recommendations that advise limiting non-essential food additives,” explained study co-author Mathilde Touvier in a press release.As our diets have become increasingly reliant on processed foods, understanding the hidden effects of additive mixtures may be key to tackling the rise of diet-related diseases like type 2 diabetes.This article is not offering medical advice and should be used for informational purposes only.Read More: What are Ultra Processed Foods? Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Food and Chemical Toxicity: Evaluation of the toxic effects of food additives, alone or in mixture, in four human cell modelsHaving worked as a biomedical research assistant in labs across three countries, Jenny excels at translating complex scientific concepts – ranging from medical breakthroughs and pharmacological discoveries to the latest in nutrition – into engaging, accessible content. Her interests extend to topics such as human evolution, psychology, and quirky animal stories. When she’s not immersed in a popular science book, you’ll find her catching waves or cruising around Vancouver Island on her longboard.

A jawbone found on the ocean floor near Taiwan provides evidence that the Denisovans — a poorly understood ancestor to modern humans — occupied southeast Asia 100,000 years ago. DNA extracted and analyzed from it has evolutionary implications, because, while contemporary southeast Asians have bits of Denisovan DNA in their genomes, the nearest known Denisovan fossil find, until now, hailed from northeastern Asia, according to a report in the journal Science.“Modern human populations in eastern Asia, particularly in the southeast, have genomic elements derived from the Denisovans, and it has been suggested that the two interbred in the region,” according to a press release. “However, so far, the molecularly identified Denisovan fossils are very fragmentary and have been found only from two sites in northern Asia. This research has directly demonstrated that Denisovans were also distributed in southeastern Asia.”Finding Traces of DenisovansDenisovans are a fairly recent addition to the human genetic family tree. In 1980, a Buddhist monk discovered a curious jawbone — but it was stored and remained unanalyzed until 2010. That year, similar fossils found in Siberia’s Denisova Cave linked the two sites. Other fossils in the cave ranging from from 300,000 years to 100,000 years ago, suggested that different groups of early humans both used the cave and may have interacted. These findings changed the way paleontologists thought about human evolution. Previously, the conventional wisdom was that we are direct descendants of Neanderthals out of Africa. Adding Denisovans to our ancestors’ genetic heritage creates a more complex story.Read More: Who Were the Denisovans?Evidence of InterbreedingOther work suggests that Neanderthals and Denisovans likely interbred near the end of the Ice Age, when glaciers began their retreat and once frozen land became forested. Those conditions meant both species no longer were isolated by ice.The newest study expands on that story, showing that the Denisovans weren’t limited to Tibet and Siberia. It also expands on the notion that Denisovans were sufficiently different than Neanderthals in two ways. First, analysis of the Taiwan jawbone, which they named Penghu 1, after the strait in which it was found — revealed proteins not rare in contemporary humans, but common in known Denisovans. The Taiwanese teeth, like the Tibetan ones share a similar distinct root structure as well as large molars.“The molecular identification of Penghu 1, a Denisovan, has significant implications for human evolutionary history in eastern Asia,” the press release concluded.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Science. A male Denisovan mandible from Pleistocene TaiwanBefore joining Discover Magazine, Paul Smaglik spent over 20 years as a science journalist, specializing in U.S. life science policy and global scientific career issues. He began his career in newspapers, but switched to scientific magazines. His work has appeared in publications including Science News, Science, Nature, and Scientific American.

Thousands of stone tools discovered in a South African cave reveal that Ice Age humans had developed sophisticated fabrication techniques about 20,000 years ago, according to a report in the Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology.Looking closely at the tools’ chipped blades as well as the larger rocks from which they were formed — what archaeologists call a core — the scientists surmised how the tools were made. That, in turn, reveals much of the makers’ know-how.“When your average person thinks about stone tools, they probably focus on the detached pieces, the blades and flakes,” Sara Watson, a postdoctoral scientist at the Field Museum in Chicago and an author of the paper, said in a press release. “But the thing that is the most interesting to me is the core because it shows us the particular methods and order of operations that people went through in order to make their tools.”Archaeologists working in the cave overlooking the ocean. (Credit: Sara Watson) Both the precision of the blade-making methods, as well as a variety of techniques used to make them, led Watson and colleagues to hypothesize that the Paleolithic people there shared tool-making knowledge with each other — and perhaps even learned from other groups.“In a lot of these technologies, the core reduction is very specific, and it’s something that you are taught and learn, and that’s where the social information is,” said Watson. “If we see specific methods of core reduction at multiple sites across the landscape, as an archaeologist, it tells me that these people were sharing ideas with one another.”For instance, Watson noticed that one particular method of breaking tiny bladelets off of a core found in the South African cave resembled a style discovered hundreds of miles away in Namibia and Lesotho, according to the release.“Same core reduction pattern, same intended product,” Watson said. “The pattern is repeated over and over and over again, which indicates that it is intentional and shared, rather than just a chance similarity."Hunting With New Tools and WeaponsWhen the blades were fabricated between 24,000 years and 12,000 years ago, Earth was a vastly different place. Since so much of Earth’s water was frozen in glaciers and ice caps, the sea level was lower, placing the caves a few miles inland rather than right on the water, where they are today.The caves then would have been a few miles inland, near vast plains with plenty of animals, such as antelope. “People hunted those animals, and to do that, they developed new tools and weapons,” said Watson.Gaining access to the caves was a treacherous task. It required a 75-foot climb, safety ropes, climbing harnesses, and stairs made of sandbags. The archaeologists made many trips up the sandbag staircase, laden with 50-pound backpacks full of excavation equipment. Removing some of the tiny, fragile items was challenging as well.Paleolithic Technology“Since these are extremely, extremely old sites, from before the end of the last Ice Age, we had to be very careful with our excavation,” Watson said. “We used little tiny dental tools and mini trowels so that we could remove each little individual layer of sediment.”Such techniques — and the ability to share how they were developed — show that Paleolithic people may have been more technologically sophisticated than previously thought. And the reach of these techniques, as evidenced by similarity-seeming tools at several sites, shows Paleolithic people likely taught skills within their own groups as well as gained knowledge from others.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology. Robberg Lithic Technology from Knysna Eastern Heads Cave 1Before joining Discover Magazine, Paul Smaglik spent over 20 years as a science journalist, specializing in U.S. life science policy and global scientific career issues. He began his career in newspapers, but switched to scientific magazines. His work has appeared in publications including Science News, Science, Nature, and Scientific American.

Hunter-gatherers were crossing at least 100 km (62 miles) of open water to reach the Mediterranean island of Malta 8,500 years ago, a thousand years before the arrival of the first farmers. (Image Credit: Daniel Clark / MPI GEA) NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsExperts have added another skillset to at least one group of hunter-gatherers: paddling. Research now shows that some stalwart seafarers stroked their way from mainland Europe to the island of Malta, about 60 miles away, about 8,500 years ago, according to an article in the journal Nature. The finding represents the longest known watery crossing of its time — all the more remarkable because it predates the invention of boats with sails.The researchers hypothesize that the canoeists tapped into sea currents and winds to propel them to their destination. They likely navigated by using landmarks and, possibly, stars since they almost certainly completed part of their journey at night. Such a distance, at an average speed of about 2.5 miles an hour, would require that part of the journey to take place after sunset.“Even on the longest day of the year, these seafarers would have had over several hours of darkness in open water,” Nicholas Vella, a University of Malta researcher and co-author of the study, said in a press release.Early Human SettlementExcavations at the cave site of Latnija by the scientific consortium led by Professor Eleanor Scerri of the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology (MPI-GEA) and the University of Malta. (Image Credit: Huw Groucutt)Evidence of life on the island pegged to that time was surprising not only because of the distance required to reach them but because the arrival then predates the rise of agriculture by about 1,000 years. Historians had often assumed that, without the technological shifts agriculture produced, such voyages would have been impossible.Human signs of life linked to the time when the explorers must have reached Malta included stone tools, hearths, and cooked food waste.“We found abundant evidence for a range of wild animals, including [red deer], long thought to have gone extinct by this point in time,” Eleanor Scerri, a Max Planck Institute anthropologist and co-author, said in the press release. “They were hunting and cooking these deer alongside tortoises and birds, including some that were extremely large and extinct today.”Read More: Do We Know When Ancient Humans First Built Boats?Seafaring Abilities of Hunter-GatherersThe cave site of Latnija in northern Malta also suggests that the crossing wasn’t a one-off in terms of aquatic exploitation. The researchers also found cooked remains of seal, multiple kinds of fish, crabs, and sea urchins, among other seafood.Such discoveries raise the question of whether other small, remote Mediterranean islands were inhabited. If so, did people from those islands visit each other? The Malta find opens up another line of investigation about the possibility of such interactions, as well as the extent to which hunting and fishing there affected the ecosystem.“The results add a thousand years to Maltese prehistory and force a re-evaluation of the seafaring abilities of Europe’s last hunter-gatherers, as well as their connections and ecosystem impacts,” Scerri concluded in the release.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Before joining Discover Magazine, Paul Smaglik spent over 20 years as a science journalist, specializing in U.S. life science policy and global scientific career issues. He began his career in newspapers, but switched to scientific magazines. His work has appeared in publications including Science News, Science, Nature, and Scientific American.1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as $1.99!SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In

An image of three sea lions swimming in the ocean unrelated to the toxic algae bloom. (Image Credit: David Keep/Shutterstock) NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsSea lions are typically not aggressive toward humans. However, these usually curious and playful marine animals have been making headlines recently for multiple attacks on people off the coast of California. The aggression is linked to a toxic algae bloom impacting nearly 400 miles of the Southern California coast, mostly in L.A. and Santa Barbara Counties. Aggressive and erratic behavior isn’t the only way this toxic bloom can affect these animals, and sea lions aren’t the only infected animals. Sea Lion AttacksRecently in March 2025, two people in Southern California were attacked by an aggressive sea lion. One man was on his surfboard when the sea lion charged, bit him, and dragged him off the surfboard. The Californian, Rj LaMendola, recounted his experience on a Facebook post. In it, he explained how the sea lion seemed “...feral, almost demonic, devoid of the curiosity or playfulness.” A similar incident occurred when a 15-year-old was in the water taking a swim test to be a lifeguard. The sea lion approached Phoebe Beltran while she was in the water and repeatedly bit her in the arm. Both LaMendola and Beltran are recovering from their injuries. Read More: What Is Red Tide – and Is It Getting Worse?Why are Sea Lions Attacking People? It’s likely that sea lions are becoming aggressive toward people because of a toxic algae bloom. According to researchers from NOAA and the Marine Mammal Care Center in Los Angeles, a bloom of Pseudo-nitzschia is the likely culprit. Pseudo-nitzschia produces a neurotoxin known as domoic acid. This toxin can cause animals such as sea lions to be lethargic, have seizures, act erratically, and it can lead to death. According to researchers, the 2025 bloom occurred earlier than usual.“What is unique about this event is that this bloom is very early in the season and doesn't appear to be associated with strong winds or a thick marine layer like we have seen in the past,” said Michelle Berman Kowalewski, founder and director at the Channel Islands Cetacean Research Unit, in a statement with NOAA. The algae blooms feed on nutrients brought on by upwelling — when winds bring nutrient-rich deep ocean water to the surface. With these nutrients, the algae can grow and spread faster. Some experts at NOAA wonder if run-off from the L.A. fires could have also led to the earlier bloom. Other Animals That Are ImpactedAs the algae blooms, it can infect fish, which are a major food source for sea lions and dolphins — the other marine animal greatly impacted by this bloom. When the sea lions and dolphins eat the fish, they become poisoned and can experience the symptoms listed above. According to NOAA, the West Coast Marine Mammal Stranding Network partners are receiving up to 100 calls a day about infected dolphins and sea lions. Besides the sea lion attacks, other reports indicated that dolphins have been seen swimming in erratic circles in shallow water and are being stranded on beaches. Marine experts can treat animals that have been poisoned with domoic acid, however, there are so many cases that the experts have to forgo treating all the sick and focus on who they think they can save.“We are having to do triage on the beach as we try to identify those animals where we have the greatest chance of making a difference,” said John Warner, chief executive officer of the Marine Mammal Care Center in Los Angeles, in a statement with NOAA.  NOAA and its partners are continuing to monitor the situation and are doing their best to keep both the animals and people safe. If you happen to be at the beach and see an animal looking lethargic or acting erratically, it’s suggested you stay 50 yards or more away from it. Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Marine Mammal Care Center. What Is Domoic Acid?A graduate of UW-Whitewater, Monica Cull wrote for several organizations, including one that focused on bees and the natural world, before coming to Discover Magazine. Her current work also appears on her travel blog and Common State Magazine. Her love of science came from watching PBS shows as a kid with her mom and spending too much time binging Doctor Who.1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as $1.99!SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In

Our dogs love the outdoors, but the outdoors don’t love our dogs. A review of previously published studies, released in Pacific Conservation Biology, has found that pet dogs have a number of negative effects on the environment, from their disruption of wildlife to their contribution to the problems of pollution and climate change. “Many owners simply don’t [realize] the environmental damage dogs can cause, from disturbing wildlife to polluting ecosystems,” said Bill Bateman, a review author and a behavioral ecologist at Curtin University in Australia, according to a press release. “However, the sheer number of pet dogs globally, combined with uninformed or lax [behaviors] by some owners, is driving environmental issues that we can no longer ignore.”The Environmental Effects of DogsThere are around 1 billion dogs in the world today, and the benefits they bring are innumerable. From the companionship they offer to the mental and physical health improvements they provide, dogs make our lives better. But despite our love for them, they don’t typically make the lives of wild animals better — they typically make them worse — as dogs tend to disrupt wildlife both when they’re around and when they’re not.When they’re outside, dogs bark and chase after animals, and when they’re indoors, they leave their traces behind, the review revealed. “Dogs leave scents, urine and [feces], which can disrupt animal [behavior] long after the dogs have left,” Bateman said in the release.Especially affected by the behaviors and the traces of our dogs are shorebirds, but other animals are impacted, too. “Studies have found that animals like deer, foxes, and bobcats in the [U.S.] are less active or completely avoid areas where dogs are regularly walked, even in the absence of the dogs,” Bateman added in the release.In addition to their effects on wildlife, pet dogs also add to the problems of pollution and climate change, the review found. “Dog waste also contributes to pollution in waterways and inhibits plant growth, while wash-off from chemical treatments used to clean and guard dogs from parasites can add toxic compounds to aquatic environments,” Bateman said in the release. “In addition, the pet food industry, driven by a vast global dog population, has a substantial carbon, land, and water footprint.”Diminishing Your Dog’s TollThese environmental burdens aren’t enough to ditch dog ownership entirely — and what could be? “Dogs are incredibly important to people’s lives, and their roles range from providing companionship to contributing to conservation efforts as detection dogs,” Bateman said in the release. However, the burdens are enough to warrant changes in the behaviors of individual dog owners. In fact, there are things that you can do to reduce the environmental toll of your dog, and they’re relatively easy to implement. For instance, cleaning up after your dog can limit its disruption of wildlife, its pollution of waterways, and its inhibition of plant growth, while purchasing environmentally friendly dog food can curb the industry’s environmental footprint, restricting its contributions to climate change. Some people “may feel their individual actions won’t make a difference, leading to a ‘tragedy of the commons’ where shared spaces like beaches and woodlands suffer cumulative degradation,” Bateman said in the release. However, they should recognize that their individual actions do matter, mitigating the negative environmental effects of their beloved pets.Another way to reduce your dog’s toll is to follow all rules or restrictions about where dogs are and aren’t allowed. “Restrictive measures such as banning dogs from sensitive areas are necessary for protecting vulnerable species,” Bateman said in the release, “but they are not a complete solution.” Indeed, those bans aren’t enough to tackle dog ownership’s effects on the environment on their own, especially if dog owners tend to ignore them. According to Bateman, we will only lower the environmental effects of our dogs by working together. “We are calling for a collaborative effort between dog owners, conservation groups, and policymakers to develop strategies that balance pet ownership with environmental care,” he said in the release. Though the solution will take effort, it will be worth the work, limiting the damage done by our best and furriest friends.Read More: How Dogs Can Benefit Your Mental HealthArticle SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Pacific Conservation Biology. Bad Dog? The Environmental Effects of Owned DogsIntegrative and Comparative Biology. Dogs as Pets and Pests: Global Patterns of Canine Abundance, Activity, and HealthSam Walters is a journalist covering archaeology, paleontology, ecology, and evolution for Discover, along with an assortment of other topics. Before joining the Discover team as an assistant editor in 2022, Sam studied journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

The results of searching the family tree of the woolly mammoth have been surprising; it turns out the beasts we most closely associate with the Ice Age emerged not from a linear lineage, but a relatively complex web of genetic diversity.A study examining 34 mammoth mitochondrial genomes, with specimens spanning a million years, gives us a glimpse of mammoth evolution. Mitochondrial DNA is a circular strand found in each cell’s powerhouse. It helps researchers trace lineage on the maternal side and is useful to paleontologists because it resists breaking down, unlike less hardy genetic material.Researchers studied mammoth mitochondrial DNA from as far back as 1.3 million years, with the most recent based on genetic material from a relatively recent mammoth from about 125,000 years ago. The study, published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, describes mammoth evolutionary history over a million years.Genetic Diversity of the Woolly Mammoth“Our analyses provide an unprecedented glimpse into how major deep-time demographic events might have shaped the genetic diversity of mammoths through time," J. Camilo Chacón-Duque, a researcher at Stockholm University and an author of the study, said in a press release.Although biodiversity likely evolved over the past 2.5 million years, very few DNA samples older than 100,000 years have been preserved well enough to study. That gives scientists the equivalent of one short scene to watch from a long-running television series.Recovering DNA from mammoths as old as a million years, analyzing it, then comparing it to 200 previously published mammoth mitogenomes essentially gives researchers a pretty good sample of scenes over its entire run.Major Demographic ShiftsThe analysis showed that genetic changes in mammoth genomes matched well with major demographic shifts that occurred during the Early and Middle Pleistocene. The study supports an ancient Siberian origin for major mammoth lineages. And the article discusses how shifts in mammoth population in different parts of the world might have resulted in a variety of mammoth genomic subtypes.For instance, the team identified the oldest known mammoth DNA in North America, dating back 200,000 years from a specimen found in the Yukon Territory of Canada. And the research confirms previous work showing that mammoths from around a million years ago are vastly different than the most recent version of the creatures.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Molecular Biology and Evolution. A Million Years of Mammoth Mitogenome EvolutionBefore joining Discover Magazine, Paul Smaglik spent over 20 years as a science journalist, specializing in U.S. life science policy and global scientific career issues. He began his career in newspapers, but switched to scientific magazines. His work has appeared in publications including Science News, Science, Nature, and Scientific American.

Beyond the heavy hitters like COVID-19, bird flu, and Ebola, more common viral infections — such as the annual flu — cost the U.S. an estimated $11.2 billion each year in lost productivity alone, leaving a huge burden on our health system and the economy.Another widespread virus that transmits through oral contact is herpes simplex virus-1 (HSV-1), which infects over two-thirds of the global population and can, in rare cases, lead to encephalitis or infectious blindness.Vaccines remain a cornerstone of prevention, but low vaccination rates, waning immunity in older adults, or the absence of available vaccines — as is the case with HSV — highlight the need for new strategies to reduce disease spread.Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Dental Medicine, in collaboration with a Finnish team, have explored an unusual but promising solution: chewing gum infused with antiviral compounds. Their study published in Molecular Therapy shows that this gum can significantly reduce the viral load in the mouth using compounds naturally found in beans.Chewing Gum vs. COVID-19Instead of focusing solely on preventing infection, the researchers looked at targeting viral transmission by lowering the number of viruses present in the mouth. While vaccines are excellent at preventing severe illness, they don’t always reduce the chances of spreading the virus — and they come with challenges like distribution, cost, storage, and the need for injection.That’s where chewing gum comes in. It’s easy, non-invasive, and directly targets the area where many viruses first replicate and spread. In one of their earlier studies, the Penn team added an antiviral protein called CTB-ACE2 to gum, which neutralized over 95 percent of SARS-CoV-2 particles in the saliva of COVID-19 patients, including major variants like beta, delta, and omicron. These encouraging results have already moved into clinical trials.Expanding the to Tackle Flu and HerpesBuilding on this success, Henry Daniell, a professor at Penn School of Dental Medicine, and his team incorporated a different antiviral protein — Flt3 Receptor Interacting Lectin (FRIL), derived from lablab beans — into gum and tested its effectiveness on multiple strains of influenza and HSV.Using a mastication simulator (a mechanical chewing device), they showed that over half of the active compound was released within 15 minutes. Just 40 milligrams of FRIL was enough to reduce more than 95 percent of the viral load present.The gum already meets FDA safety standards and is easy to store, making it a convenient product that could hit the market relatively soon.Fighting the Spread of Bird FluAccording to a recent press release, FRIL also appears effective against two strains of bird flu. While chewing gum might not be an option for birds, the researchers are now testing lablab bean powder as an additive in bird feed.“Controlling transmission of viruses continues to be a major global challenge,” said Daniell in the release. “A broad-spectrum antiviral protein (FRIL), present in a natural food product (bean powder), that neutralizes not only human flu viruses but also avian flu is a timely innovation to prevent their infection and transmission.”Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:National Foundation for Infectious Diseases: Flu (Influenza)Having worked as a biomedical research assistant in labs across three countries, Jenny excels at translating complex scientific concepts – ranging from medical breakthroughs and pharmacological discoveries to the latest in nutrition – into engaging, accessible content. Her interests extend to topics such as human evolution, psychology, and quirky animal stories. When she’s not immersed in a popular science book, you’ll find her catching waves or cruising around Vancouver Island on her longboard.

Feeling sluggish, depressed, anxious, and having trouble concentrating while being sick might not just be due to physical weakness. Extensive reports from health professionals have pointed out that these symptoms, labeled "sickness behavior," are more than just side effects of the body fighting off an infection. They appear to be part of an intentional behavior pattern driven by a collaboration between the brain and the immune system.This pattern may have evolutionary significance, helping to protect the community by reducing direct contact and preventing the spread of disease. Beyond that, it might hold valuable insights into mental health conditions, potentially leading to new treatment strategies.Two studies from Harvard Medical School and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), published in Cell, have brought us a step closer to understanding the molecular mechanisms behind how inflammation impacts our moods and behaviors. The research has identified which parts of the immune system communicate with the brain to explain this phenomenon.Cytokines in Brain-Immune CrosstalkCytokines are small protein messengers released by a wide range of cells, especially immune cells. They help immune cells communicate, particularly when preparing to launch an inflammatory response to fight off pathogens.Cytokines are not all the same; they fall into two broad categories: pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory, each playing a role in maintaining the delicate balance between fighting infections and preventing excessive inflammation.To send messages, cytokines bind to receptors on their target immune cells, much like a key fitting into a lock, to fulfill their role in the immune system. Interestingly, cytokines don't only affect immune responses; their impact extends to the brain, influencing cognition, mood, and behavior.For example, a 2019 study on mice suggested that IL-17A, a cytokine released during fever caused by inflammatory infections, could explain the temporary reduction in social behavior often observed in autistic children. While this discovery hints at the complexity of brain-immune crosstalk, the full extent of it is still not well understood.Uncovering Cytokines' Role in Mood and BehaviorThe same researchers who conducted the cytokine study on autism expanded their research to investigate how and where cytokine signals in the brain affect mood, anxiety, and social behavior.One study identified how specific cytokines, such as IL-17A and IL-17C, target the amygdala — the brain's fear center — and influence its neural activity, leading to increased anxiety. Interestingly, when the researchers attempted to block the receptor (receptor antagonism is a common pharmacological effect of many commercial drugs), anxiety actually increased. Another fascinating finding was that the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 seemed to reduce anxiety.Another study further explored cytokines' role in mood regulation by returning to autism-like behaviors. It identified several cytokines and their receptors, in addition to IL-17A, that appear to enhance social interactions in mice with autism-like traits. Notably, IL-17E was also found to be produced by neurons in the brain, positioning it as a neuromodulator, much like other neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine."Our results emphasize the important role of immune signaling in shaping mood and behavior by acting on specific brain pathways," explained co-senior author Gloria Choi, Associate Professor at MIT's Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, in a press release.Potential Alternatives to Traditional Psychiatric Drugs"By identifying where and how cytokine receptors work in the brain, we have begun to unravel the complex relationship between the nervous and immune systems in the effect of this complex crosstalk on mood and behavior,” said Jun Huh, associate professor of immunology in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS and co-senior author on the two studies in the press release.While Huh’s and Choi’s research brings us forward in understanding brain-immune communication, more studies are necessary, especially regarding human application.In the future, new treatments for autism and anxiety disorders could be a result of these initial findings. Unlike traditional psychiatric drugs, which alter brain chemistry directly, these therapies may adjust immune signals from outside the brain, offering a novel approach using the immune system.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Harvard Medical School. Cracking the Fever-Autism MysteryHaving worked as a biomedical research assistant in labs across three countries, Jenny excels at translating complex scientific concepts – ranging from medical breakthroughs and pharmacological discoveries to the latest in nutrition – into engaging, accessible content. Her interests extend to topics such as human evolution, psychology, and quirky animal stories. When she’s not immersed in a popular science book, you’ll find her catching waves or cruising around Vancouver Island on her longboard.

A buried ancient altar at the center of the Maya city of Tikal points to the tensions between the Maya and their neighbors in the late 300s C.E. According to a new study in Antiquity, the altar wasn’t made by artisans trained in Tikal. Instead, it was made by artisans trained in Teotihuacan, an ancient city around 630 miles away that had a heavy influence — and a heavy hand — over Tikal in the fourth century C.E. “It’s increasingly clear that this was an extraordinary period of turbulence at Tikal,” said Stephen Houston, a study author and an archaeologist and anthropologist at Brown University, according to a press release. “What the altar confirms is that wealthy leaders from Teotihuacan came to Tikal and created replicas of ritual facilities that would have existed in their home city. It shows Teotihuacan left a heavy imprint there.”According to the study authors, the altar is a testament to the tensions within the ancient world and reveals important insights into the Maya’s response to Teotihuacan influence in Tikal.Tikal Versus TeotihuacanResearchers discovered a buried altar that was built around the late 300s A.D. (Image Courtesy of Amanda McGregor, Image by Edwin Román Ramírez)The Maya city of Tikal arose in modern-day Guatemala around 850 B.C.E. It started out small and uninfluential. But by around 300 C.E., Tikal had grown in size and in influence and had started interacting consistently with the city of Teotihuacan in modern-day Mexico. Though the relationship between the two communities was initially commercial and centered on trade, it gradually turned contentious by the late 300s C.E., with the people of Teotihuacan overthrowing and potentially occupying the city of Tikal.“It’s almost as if Tikal poked the beast and got too much attention from Teotihuacan,” Houston said, according to the release. “That’s when foreigners started moving into the area.”Over the years, researchers have gathered a good amount of evidence on the movement of elites from one city to the other. In 2021, for instance, researchers reported that they had found a citadel in Tikal, which indicated that people from Teotihuacan had arrived in the city — and had probably occupied it — in the lead-up to its overthrow. Similarly, in the 1960s, researchers found an inscription in Tikal suggesting that elites from Teotihuacan had removed the city’s ruler around 378 C.E. and had replaced him with a ruler “who proved a useful local instrument to Teotihuacan,” Houston said, according to the release.The authors of the new study say that the ancient altar at Tikal adds to this tale of political takeover. Constructed in the same time period as the coup, in the late 300s C.E., according to the press release, the altar seems to have appeared at the center of the city as a part of its overthrow.Responding to RivalryA rendering of the altar illustrates the painted panels of red, black and yellow depicting a person wearing a feathered headdress and flanked by shields or regalia. (Image Courtesy of Amanda McGregor, Image by Heather Hurst)Depicting a figure in feathered regalia, the altar’s painted panels resemble depictions of the “Storm God,” a deity seen in art from Teotihuacan. But this paneling isn’t the only indication that the altar was made by an artist trained in Teotihuacan. Indeed, the altar’s contents — the body of a child placed in a sitting position — bear a stronger similarity to Teotihuacan’s traditions of ritual sacrifice and burial than Tikal’s.With its paintings and its contents, the altar testifies to the Teotihuacan influence in Tikal. But it also testifies to the aftermath of that influence, as the altar and its surrounding area were later buried. “The Maya regularly buried buildings and rebuilt on top of them,” said Andrew Scherer, another study author and archaeologist and anthropologist at Brown University, according to the press release. “But here, they buried the altar and surrounding buildings and just left them, even though this would have been prime real estate centuries later. They treated it almost like a memorial or a radioactive zone. It probably speaks to the complicated feelings they had about Teotihuacan.”Tikal’s relationship to Teotihuacan and to the Teotihuacan takeover was certainly “complicated,” as the tensions in the fourth century C.E. preceded a period of power for the Maya, Houston said in the press release. Tikal’s success spanned several centuries, though the Maya always remembered their rivalry with Teotihuacan.“There’s a kind of nostalgia about that time, when Teotihuacan was at the height of its power and taking increasing interest in the Maya,” Houston said in the release. “It’s something exalted for them; they looked back on it almost wistfully.”Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Sam Walters is a journalist covering archaeology, paleontology, ecology, and evolution for Discover, along with an assortment of other topics. Before joining the Discover team as an assistant editor in 2022, Sam studied journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

The pursuit of de-extinction has broken new ground yet again, as three young wolves are carrying on the legacy of the dire wolf species that disappeared from Earth around 12,500 years ago. Dallas-based Colossal Biosciences, the company leading the de-extinction charge, recently declared that the dire wolf has returned for good.The three wolves brought to life by the company — Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi — emulate many unmistakable dire wolf characteristics, seen in their size, skull shape, and stunning white coats. This breakthrough was made possible with technology that allowed scientists to alter gray wolf genes so they would mirror extinct dire wolf genes; while serving as a stepping stone for future de-extinction endeavors, the dire wolf project may also pave the way for the future of conservation. When Did Dire Wolves Live? Romulus and Remus and puppies on the Iron Throne (Images Courtesy of Colossal Biosciences)The dire wolf (Aenocyon dirus) once roamed throughout North and South America during the Late Pleistocene, facing extinction near the end of the last ice age. The species may have been doomed by its diet; it dined mostly on megaherbivores, many of which would vanish in the Americas starting around 13,000 years ago, leaving dire wolves with less prey to eat.Long after their demise, dire wolves rose up the ladder of pop culture thanks to their fictionalized appearance in the Game of Thrones series. While fantasy fans have become familiar with the dire wolf, the species' esteem does not stop there; through generations of oral tradition, the dire wolf has also served as a mythological cornerstone for the MHA Nation, a federally recognized Native American Nation in North Dakota.  Read More: Fact or Fiction: Are Mysterious Dire Wolves Real?Reviving Extinct GenesColossal’s dire wolf project started with DNA extraction from two fossils — a 13,000-year-old tooth found in Ohio and a 72,000-year-old inner ear bone found in Idaho. As scientists analyzed these fossils, they encountered new revelations on dire wolf evolution. The company announced in a statement that gray wolves and dire wolves share 99.5 percent of their DNA code based on genetic analysis, although prior studies have previously asserted that dire wolves may be related more closely to jackals rather than gray wolves. Scientists at Colossal used DNA from the two fossils to pinpoint parts of the dire wolf genome that gave the species its unique traits. To bring this gene expression back into the modern era, they had to first acquire a donor gray wolf donor genome through a non-invasive blood drawing procedure that gave them epithelial progenitor cells (EPCs).They then performed multiplex gene editing, a process that allowed them to edit 20 sites across 14 genes in the gray wolf genome. Among these edits, 15 of them targeted extinct dire wolf variants, activating gene expressions that haven’t been seen for over 10,000 years. It is worth noting, though, that throughout this process, dire wolf DNA was only used as a reference point for edits of the grey wolf genome. The scientists cloned embryos containing these edited genes and then surgically put them inside a surrogate dog that would eventually birth the wolves. A Growing Pack (Images Courtesy of Colossal Biosciences)Romulus and Remus, now about 6 months old, were the first to be born from this project. Spending their days at a 2000+ acre preserve, they've already passed many developmental milestones and are now weighing upwards of 80 pounds. Khaleesi, only 2 months old at this point, is still considered too young to join Romulus and Remus, but she will inevitably join the growing pack once she's large enough.The wolves will continue to be monitored by care staff at the preserve while scientists keep an eye on their progress over time. Beth Shapiro, Colossal’s Chief Science Officer, says the dire wolf is known to have been an adaptable species since it has lived through warmer interglacial periods and colder ice ages. “They’re clearly adaptable, behaviorally plastic animals, and as they grow and as they start to interact with their environment, we’re going to learn about this plasticity,” says Shapiro. “We’ll learn about the way that they interact with different types of habitats, different types of temperatures and climate regimes.”According to Matt James, Colossal’s Chief Animal Officer, the company has discussed expanding the pack size to around eight wolves to fit a more natural wolf pack structure.Upholding Conservation and BiodiversityThe identity of Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi has some independent scientists voicing qualms about the authenticity of dire wolf de-extinction — whether these wolves are truly the dire wolves of the distant past or just gray wolves that have been genetically modified to appear as dire wolves. Shapiro notes that when it comes to de-extinction, Colossal is “not about creating perfect genetic copies of something that used to be there, but about restoring lost ecological functions and enhancing biodiversity.” Despite the air of hesitancy partially clouding the results, the project strikes a hopeful chord for wildlife conservation. The same technological advancements used by Colossal to give life to Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi have also allowed the company to birth two litters of cloned red wolves, a critically endangered species native to the southeastern U.S. Gene editing, according to the company, will become an important tool to help species endure a changing world. A vital goal of their core de-extinction projects — involving the dire wolf, the woolly mammoth, and the thylacine (also known as the Tasmanian Tiger) — is to direct attention toward bolstering conservation and reducing loss of biodiversity.“I think what Colossal can offer with our technologies is opportunities to help recover populations at scale in places where they should be reintroduced responsibly in a way that can be focused on coexistence,” says James.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:National Park Service. Dire WolfThe University of Adeliade. Ancient DNA research reveals evolutionary secrets of Game of Thrones dire wolves.Jack Knudson is an assistant editor at Discover with a strong interest in environmental science and history. Before joining Discover in 2023, he studied journalism at the Scripps College of Communication at Ohio University and previously interned at Recycling Today magazine.

Dinosaurs were living their best life, so legend goes, until the unwelcome arrival of a killer asteroid — Chicxulub — triggered an extinction-level event 66 million years ago. That was until more recent research suggested dinosaurs were already in a state of decline and the asteroid was just the final nail in the coffin. Now, new findings turn this theory on its head once again, arguing that the dinosaurs’ supposed decline may, in fact, be the result of a poor fossil record.“It’s been a subject of debate for more than 30 years. Were dinosaurs doomed and already on their way out before the asteroid hit?” lead author Chris Dean, Research Fellow in Paleontology at University College London (UCL), in the U.K., said in a press release.According to research published in Current Biology, probably not.Off the Fossil RecordIf you were to look at the fossil records without greater context, it may appear as though the number of dinosaur species peaked approximately 75 million years ago and underwent a period of decline in the nine million years before the arrival of the killer asteroid. However, Dean and his fellow researchers argue that this has less to do with what was really happening in North America at the time and more to do with the poor quality of fossils in the lead up to Chixculub. “Our findings hint that, in this region at least, dinosaurs may have been doing better than previously suggested in the lead-up to the asteroid impact, potentially with a higher diversity of species than we see in the raw rock record,” Dean said in a press release.For this study, the team analyzed North America’s fossil record (an impressive collection of more than 8,000 specimens) in the 18 years leading up to the asteroid collision (84 million to 66 million years ago). The researchers also used a technique called occupancy modelling that enabled them to determine the likelihood of a species' presence in a given area.Dino Occupancy ModellingThe research team split the dinosaurs into four groups (or clades): Ankylosauridae (armoured herbivores), Ceratopsidae (three-horned herbivores, including Triceratops), Hadrosauridae (duck-billed herbivores), and Tyrannosauridae (carnivorous dinosaurs like the infamous Tyrannosaurus Rex). Meanwhile, the team divided North America into a grid that took into consideration the geology, geography, and climate as it was at the time. The researchers then estimated the likelihood of each of the dinosaur clades occupying the different grid cells at four time points within the final 18 million years of the Cretaceous period.Dinosaurs Were Not in Decline Their results suggest that, contrary to the fossil record, the proportion of land occupied by each of the four groups remained stable  — and, significantly, their risk of extinction was low. In fact, Ceratopsidaes may have been even more prolific towards the tail end of the Cretaceous period, thanks to their predilection for green plains away from rivers, a habitat in increasing supply at this time.In other words, their modelling suggests the dinosaurs were not in decline. However, according to the researchers, the likelihood of finding fossils towards the end of the Cretaceous period is lower, primarily as a result of a shortage of accessible rock.“The probability of finding dinosaur fossils decreases, while the likelihood of dinosaurs having lived in these areas at the time is stable. This shows we can’t take the fossil record at face value,” Dean said in the press release.While it might not be enough to settle the debate once and for all, it does suggest that what might look like a decline could be the result of a poor (and misleading) fossil record.“Dinosaurs were probably not inevitably doomed to extinction at the end of the Mesozoic,” said Alfio Alessandro Chiarenza, a paleontologist at UCL who co-authored the paper, in a press release. “If it weren’t for that asteroid, they might still share this planet with mammals, lizards, and their surviving descendants: birds.”Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Rosie is a freelance writer living in London. She has covered science and health topics for publications, including IFLScience, Newsweek, and Health.

Anyone who has witnessed a total solar eclipse has likely also noticed the sounds of silence accompanying “totality”. People have long reported anecdotally that birds stop chirping as the day suddenly darkens.Recording the Sounds of an EclipseA study examining how birds responded to the total solar eclipse on April 8, 2024, systematically confirms that trend and expands upon it. The birds don’t go completely silent until 99 percent of the sun is obscured, according to a study published in Scientific Reports.The study does two things that previous efforts haven’t accomplished. First, it took humans out of the equation because the presence of people could affect the birds’ reactions. Second, it used remote acoustic monitoring, which not only eliminates human distraction but also allows for a more comprehensive, systematic way to gather birdsong data.Remote Bird Song RecordingResearchers placed 344 acoustic monitoring devices called “Haikuboxes” in the field to record birdsong before, during, and after the eclipse. They noticed differences in how the birds responded when humans were also heard, so they eliminated data from those sites.“Our first, quick look at Haikubox data just a few hours after the eclipse showed a large dip in bird vocalizations around the time of peak totality,” David Mann, a researcher at Loggerhead Instruments (the company that builds Haikuboxes) and an author of the study, said in a press release. “When we dove deeper into the data and removed any sites where humans may have influenced the birds’ behaviors, we found a much more complicated story. People were pretty excited about the total solar eclipse, and their celebrations likely affected the birds’ reactions,” Mann added in the release. Unexpected FindingsWith humans removed from the equation, the recordings DID show that birds quieted — but were only completely silent during “totality”.Another unexpected finding showed varied responses between bird species and even different responses from the same species at different sites. For example, black-capped chickadees in a New York State location were quiet until well after totality, but the same species in Vermont increased their vocalizations during and immediately after peak totality“The variability in bird responses and site differences was fascinating,” Mann said. “We really don’t know why birds had such different responses to the total darkness during the eclipse. Despite examining factors like temperature, cloud cover, and wind speed, we found no significant relationship with changes in vocalization rates. This strongly suggests that the sudden total darkness and associated changes in wind and temperature were the primary drivers of the observed behavioral shifts.”Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Scientific Reports. Continental-scale behavioral response of birds to a total solar eclipseBefore joining Discover Magazine, Paul Smaglik spent over 20 years as a science journalist, specializing in U.S. life science policy and global scientific career issues. He began his career in newspapers, but switched to scientific magazines. His work has appeared in publications including Science News, Science, Nature, and Scientific American.

Parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may someday see relief from disruptive behaviors associated with ASD, thanks to cannabidiol (CBD) extract treatments, according to research presented at the 2025 European Congress of Psychiatry (EPA).Learning About Autism TreatmentsAbout 1 in 100 children are estimated to have ASD. Children and teens with the disorder often have difficulty interpreting language and expressing emotions. They also sometimes cause disruptions, for instance, by repeating certain words or behaviors.Current treatments for autism fall into two categories: medication and behavior. Neither has demonstrated large-scale efficacy.Medications to treat ASD include anti-anxiety and antipsychotic drugs, as well as stimulants. But these medications’ efficacy vary widely from patient to patient. They also don’t appear to control anti-social behavior and often come with side effects.Behavioral treatments for ASD tend to focus on applied behavior analysis (ABA). That treatment leans into a patient’s strengths or obsessions and uses constant feedback to alter behavior. However, there is some doubt about this approach’s efficacy.Looking for a Better Way to Treat AutismDue to both the extent of ASD and the challenges in treating its symptoms, both parents and physicians have been searching for a more effective and universal approach.“ASD can be extremely frustrating for all involved; parents of children and adolescents with the disorder, the treating clinicians and of course the children and adolescents themselves," Geert Dom, EPA president, said in a press release. “A large part of this frustration is down to finding a viable treatment option that works to reduce symptoms.”The researchers turned to three earlier, small studies where children and teens received varying doses of CBD oil. They then pooled the results in the “meta-analysis” they presented at the conference. Those results appear promising.Early Signs of SuccessThe treatments “significantly enhanced” social responsiveness. They also provided “small yet notable reductions” in disruptive behaviors and anxiety, according to the study.The oral treatments also didn’t appear to cause any substantial adverse effects when compared to a placebo. The authors recommend that the treatment be tried with many more patients to test both the approach’s safety and efficacy before it is approved for widespread use.This article is not offering medical advice and should be used for informational purposes only. Read More: Why Girls With Autism Commonly Go UndiagnosedArticle SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Before joining Discover Magazine, Paul Smaglik spent over 20 years as a science journalist, specializing in U.S. life science policy and global scientific career issues. He began his career in newspapers, but switched to scientific magazines. His work has appeared in publications including Science News, Science, Nature, and Scientific American.

If an expansive Mesozoic menu was laid out in front of you, what would you order? Tyranno tenders or triceratops-burgers with triple cheese? Would you go for a slow-cooked stegosaurus steak or the velociraptor ribs — the Cretaceous fast-food option? Determining what dinosaurs tasted like is not an easy question to answer.“I don’t know if you can really say too much definitively about it,” says David Varricchio, a paleontologist at Montana State University.But there may be some clues about the taste of them — after all, we eat dinosaurs all the time, whether it’s Thanksgiving dinner turkey or chicken dino nuggets. Varricchio says that what we can infer about dinosaur taste is mostly based on factors like their diet, physiology, and what species they were related to.Did Dinosaurs Taste Like Chicken?“The cheap and easy take” about the taste of dinosaurs is that they’d likely taste like chicken, says Nick Longrich, a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Bath in England.Both he and Varricchio point to the case of alligator meat, which is a little like chicken, for example. But Longrich still doubts that dinosaurs would taste like chicken for several reasons. For starters, “not even all chicken tastes like chicken,” he says, referencing the difference in flavor between light and dark meat.If by chicken, most people think of the white breast meat, it’s still unlikely that other types of dinosaurs tasted like it. Plus, even other birds like duck or turkey taste a little different than chicken, so there is no reason to think that other dinosaurs would taste more like chicken, Longrich says.Taste of Red MeatHumans have been farming some of the largest birds on our planet for some time, and the taste of ostrich or emu is more like red meat, Varricchio says, as opposed to turkey and chicken, which are roughly more like each other than either is to ostrich or emu.Some of the more active dinosaurs that relied on speed and running, for example, might have had meat that tasted a little more like ostrich or emu due to a similar physiology.What Did Large, Slower-Moving Dinosaurs Taste Like?It’s more difficult to guess what triceratops or stegosaurus might have tasted like. These creatures — or even large sauropods — typically have slower metabolisms than fast-moving theropods.Since they would have had less burst activity, they may have tasted more like alligator, Varricchio says, or even pork.Longrich says that some dinosaurs would have likely had more of a red meat flavor. “Spinosaurus, for example, was aquatic, so it may have had very high amount of myoglobin to store oxygen in its tissues, the way whales, seals, and otters do,” he says. Myoglobin is a protein usually found in red meat, and the amount of it can have a big effect on taste.In these large, slow-moving creatures, age may also have played a factor in the taste of their meat, in the same way that veal tastes different from other beef, or the way that lamb tastes different from mutton.Tasting Herbivores vs. CarnivoresThe diet of dinosaurs likely also played a role in their taste. In the same way that grass-fed beef might taste different from corn-fed beef, creatures that ate certain types of plants may vary from other dinosaurs that feasted on other vegetation.Most of the meat humans eat comes from plant eating or omnivorous species — our typical meat doesn’t usually eat meat. “Bears that eat a lot of berries, for example, are supposed to be tastier than those eating a lot of fish,” Longrich says, adding that baboons, which eat lots of fruits “have an incredibly sweet, succulent meat.”The trouble for dinosaur meat was many fruits didn’t exist in the Mesozoic. Grass hadn’t even taken off when non-bird dinosaurs were around — herbivores mostly would have eaten ferns, conifers, and cycads.“How does that affect the taste? Hard to say,” Longrich says. “I have never had beef fed on ferns and conifers.”It’s even harder to tell what a carnivore like Tyrannosaurus rex would have tasted like. Varricchio notes that some research has found evidence of individual T. rexes having parasitic fungus infections. Whether that would have infused a Tyranno-steak with a mushroom or yeast flavor is unclear, but it would probably be best to avoid that dinner altogether.Regardless of some of the guesses we can make about the taste of certain types of dinosaurs, it’s likely that they were just as diverse — if not more so — than the taste of bird meat, or mammal meat, today.“You’re dealing with over 100 million years, a huge range of species with different lifestyles, and diets that range from more primitive plants like ferns and cycads and conifers, to more flowering plants and fruit towards the end,” Longrich says.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:American Museum of Natural History. Types of DinosaursJoshua Rapp Learn is an award-winning D.C.-based science writer. An expat Albertan, he contributes to a number of science publications like National Geographic, The New York Times, The Guardian, New Scientist, Hakai, and others.

One of the best things about baseball season is the food. There is no sign of spring quite like enjoying a cold drink and a hot dog with thousands of fellow fans inside a stadium. This tradition is bound to put a hole in your wallet, but do you know what it might cost you health-wise?A new survey conducted by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine/Morning Consult reveals that although 88 percent of Americans have eaten a hot dog in their lifetime, much less are aware of the specific health concerns surrounding processed meats. “Tens of millions of Americans could eat hot dogs this baseball season, but most of them are unaware that doing so raises their risk of colorectal cancer and other diseases,” said Noah Praamsma, a nutrition education coordinator, in a press release. Health Risks of Eating Hot DogsLarge quantities of hot dogs are consumed every year, with 20 million being eaten during baseball season alone. Hot dogs are also categorized as processed meats and carry with them the many health risks associated with that food type.Processed meats are any meat that has been preserved or modified, usually using techniques like smoking, salting, curing, or adding preservatives. These techniques are often used to extend a meat’s shelf life or to add or change the flavor. Common processed meats include bacon, ham, deli meats, sausages, and, of course, hot dogs.Along with links to obesity and heart disease, the main problem with processed meats is their link to cancer. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), processed meats are now classified as carcinogenic.Processed Meats and Cancer More specifically, there is an established link between eating processed meats and colorectal cancer. The more someone consumes processed meats, the more their risk for colorectal cancer increases.This link is especially alarming due to the dramatic rise in colorectal cancer diagnoses and deaths in the U.S. In the 1990s, colorectal cancer was the fourth leading cause of cancer death in America. Now, it is the leading cause of cancer death in men and the second leading cause of cancer death in women between the ages of 40 and 49.Concerningly, there has also been a drastic increase in colorectal cancer deaths among young Americans. It is also the leading cause of cancer death in men 20-39 and the third leading cause of cancer death in women of the same age bracket. It’s important to note that indulging in the occasional ballpark dog won’t give you cancer. The problem occurs when processed meats become part of a daily diet. Consuming only 50 grams of processed meat a day, the equivalent of a single hot dog, will increase colorectal cancer risk by 18 percent.Unaware of Health RisksThe survey, conducted in March of 2025 and involving 2,204 U.S. adults, revealed that 57 percent of respondents had eaten a hot dog at a baseball stadium, but almost all of them didn’t know or fully understand the associated health risks.For 51 percent of respondents, the risks were something they’d heard of, but they didn’t know the specific details. Another 30 percent were completely unaware of the health risks. The team behind the survey isn’t advocating for people to never eat a hot dog again. Instead, they hope to increase awareness of the risks of consuming processed meat so that Americans can make an informed decision about their next stadium snack.In a promising result, 40 percent of those surveyed said they’d be open to trying a plant-based hot dog, and 63 percent agreed that baseball stadiums should offer plant-based options for those fans who are trying to make healthier choices. What can you do if there are no plant-based dogs at your next baseball outing? Another stadium favorite may be the answer. “If veggie dogs and other plant-based options aren’t available, opt for roasted peanuts – a staple at baseball stadiums,” Praamsma said in a press release. “Peanuts are packed with disease-fighting plant protein and can be protective against colorectal cancer.”Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine/Morning Consult. Baseball and Hot Dogs Survey As the marketing coordinator at Discover Magazine, Stephanie Edwards interacts with readers across Discover's social media channels and writes digital content. Offline, she is a contract lecturer in English & Cultural Studies at Lakehead University, teaching courses on everything from professional communication to Taylor Swift, and received her graduate degrees in the same department from McMaster University. You can find more of her science writing in Lab Manager and her short fiction in anthologies and literary magazine across the horror genre.

Bad news for allergy sufferers: climate change may make your seasonal allergies last even longer. Scientists developed a model accounting for how different warming scenarios could affect pollen production and emissions. What they found was, by the end of the century, warmer temperatures could kick off the spring allergy season 10 days to 40 days earlier and extend summer/fall emissions an extra 5 days to 15 days, the researchers report in the journal Nature Communications.“These simulations indicate that increasing pollen and longer seasons will increase the likelihood of seasonal allergies,” said the authors of the study.Climate Change Could Boost AllergensFor allergy sufferers, plant pollen triggers the immune system. Allergic reactions can include a scratchy throat, watery eyes, itchy skin, runny nose, and sneezing. About 50 million Americans have some kind of allergy, with trees, grasses, weeds, mold, and dust mites the most common.Both rising temperature and increased CO2 will play roles in increasing the number of pollen-producing plants, as well as driving them to make, then release pollen even earlier. The models accounted for where pollen-producing plants are likely to grow more on Earth as the planet warms. But the lengthening of the season will likely play a bigger role than increased plant coverage.Although this outcome is based on a computerized simulation, the probability of an extended allergy season linked to a warming world is very high.Read More: Everything to Know About AllergiesLonger Season, Higher Pollen CountNot only will warming extend the allergy season in both directions, it could also put more pollen into the air — both daily and over time. Simulations show rising temperature and precipitation boosting daily pollen emissions by about 35 percent to 40 percent. Total pollen emission yearly could rise by as much as 40 percent, according to the model.Although this model relies on mathematical simulations, to make predictions, other studies have already shown that warming temperatures have impacted pollen and mold production.For example, a study published in Nature analyzed number high-pollen count weeks in the San Francisco Bay area between 2002 and 2019 and showed increases over time as temperature and precipitation rose. Atmospheric CO2 and wildfire smoke were not factors.Other work has shown effects of climate change on specific plants that produce pollen. For instance, ragweed pollen season in North America has lengthened since 1995. The amount varies depending by area. For example, the ragweed pollen season is now 16 days longer in Minneapolis than it was in 1995.This article is not offering medical advice and should be used for informational purposes only.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Before joining Discover Magazine, Paul Smaglik spent over 20 years as a science journalist, specializing in U.S. life science policy and global scientific career issues. He began his career in newspapers, but switched to scientific magazines. His work has appeared in publications including Science News, Science, Nature, and Scientific American.

According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, the state’s measles outbreak has reached 481 cases since January 2025 and has led to the deaths of two school-aged children and possibly one adult, though officials are still looking into the individual's cause of death. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the measles outbreak is not isolated to Texas and has moved to other areas of the U.S. There are now, as of April 3, 2025, over 600 cases in the U.S. This number already exceeds the 285 cases reported in 2024. As the virus continues to spread, here’s what you need to know about it. What Is the Measles Virus? Measles is a highly-contagious air born virus. It typically spreads from an infected person sneezing, coughing, or breathing, according to the National Health Service (NHS). Though adults can become infected, children are more susceptible to measles. Early symptoms can present as the following, according to the World Health Organization (WHO): CoughRunny noseFever Watery, red eyesWhite spots inside the mouth (inside cheeks) However, the biggest sign of measles is typically a full-body rash that starts on the head and face before spreading to the rest of the body. The virus usually lasts about 10 to 14 days, according to the Cleveland Clinic, that is, if the virus hasn’t caused other complications. Complications Caused by MeaslesMeasles can cause a slew of complications, especially in those who are high risk. According to the WHO, children under 5 years of age, immunocompromised people, and pregnant people all have a higher risk of contracting measles. Along with that, these groups are also more likely to develop complications from measles. These complications included severe dehydration, typically caused by diarrhea. Those in the high-risk groups could also develop ear infections, blindness, encephalitis — a brain swelling infection — and respiratory illnesses, including pneumonia, bronchiectasis, and laryngitis. Pregnant people who contract measles may deliver their baby prematurely. The biggest issue caused by measles can be death. According to the WHO, over 107,000 people died due to complications from measles across the globe in 2023, and most of these people were children. However, measles is a fairly preventable virus. How to Prevent MeaslesIn 1963, the first measles vaccines began their rollout in the U.S. Now, most children receive their measles vaccine through their MMR — measles, mumps, and rubella — shot. This two-dose shot is usually administered by doctors to children when they are around 12 to 15 months old, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Children then receive their second MMR vaccine when they are between the ages of four and six. According to multiple public heath agencies, including the Texas Department of State Health Services, the CDC, the NHS, the WHO, and the Cleveland Clinic, vaccinating against the measles is still the most efficient way to prevent contracting and spreading the virus. This article is not offering medical advice and should be used for informational purposes only. Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Texas Department of State Health Services. Measles Outbreak – April 4, 2025Cleveland Clinic. Measles (Rubeola)Cleveland Clinic. MMR VaccineA graduate of UW-Whitewater, Monica Cull wrote for several organizations, including one that focused on bees and the natural world, before coming to Discover Magazine. Her current work also appears on her travel blog and Common State Magazine. Her love of science came from watching PBS shows as a kid with her mom and spending too much time binging Doctor Who.

In the world today, it seems that politics are always at the top of mind. But some people are more political and more politically passionate than others — partially thanks to the brain itself. According to a paper published in the journal Brain, there are circuits in our minds that contribute to our levels of political intensity, and researchers recently revealed these circuits, identifying which brain regions are involved. “We didn’t find brain networks tied to liberal or conservative ideology, but we identified circuits that influence the intensity of political engagement across the political spectrum,” said Jordan Grafman, a paper author and a professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Northwestern University, according to a press release.Ultimately, the results reveal that the regions of our brain that control our cognition and emotion influence our levels of political passion — a result with clear cultural and clinical implications. Political Passion in the BrainOf course, there are all sorts of factors that are tied to our interest in politics, and the brain itself is one of them. But the brain regions that are involved in increasing or decreasing our political passion aren’t well-recognized.Setting out to identify which parts of the brain influence a person’s political intensity, researchers turned to veterans. Studying the brains and the political behaviors of veterans with brain injuries and without, the researchers determined which parts of the brain are behind the strength of our political beliefs. In particular, while brain injuries in the prefrontal cortex were tied to increased political passion, brain injuries in the amygdala were tied to decreased political passion. These results suggest that the brain regions associated with cognitive control and emotion are deeply involved in mediating our political intensity, with injuries that dull our cognitive control increasing our intensity and injuries that dull our emotions doing the opposite. “While most people have not sustained brain injuries akin to those experienced by the veterans in the study, our findings tell us what neural circuits are at play for the population at large,” Grafman said in the release. Indeed, the implications of this research are wide ranging, as a recognition of the brain’s involvement in our political passion could improve our ability to communicate and collaborate on politics overall. It could also inform brain injury assessments in clinical settings, Grafman said in the release, as increases or decreases in political intensity could be indicative issues in the prefrontal cortex or the amygdala.“Like other aspects of social behavior, assessments should consider asking whether a patient has experienced changes in their political attitudes since their brain injury,” he added in the release.Brain Injury Insights To determine the association between brain injuries and political behavior, the researchers turned to the results of the Vietnam Head Injury study, which Grafman has led for decades, since his own service in the U.S. Air Force. In one portion of the study, the brain injuries and the political behaviors of almost 160 veterans were assessed, the former through neuroimaging and the latter through surveys. Conducted between 2008 and 2012, the surveys assessed the veterans’ political behaviors before and after their injuries, which were sustained around 40 to 45 years prior.Analyzing the results of this study, the researchers determined whether injuries in specific parts of the brain were associated with specific political behaviors. According to the researchers, the associations that they found — between injuries in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala and political passion — were not attributable to outside factors, such as age, personality, or party affiliation. The result “allows us to better assess meaningful aspects of life,” said Grafman in the press release. “We expect this research will point to ways we can assist patients in recovering from brain injuries.”Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Sam Walters is a journalist covering archaeology, paleontology, ecology, and evolution for Discover, along with an assortment of other topics. Before joining the Discover team as an assistant editor in 2022, Sam studied journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

When searching for signs of life on planets outside our Solar System, sometimes nothing is almost as good as something. Even a lack of biosignatures on examined exoplanets can still tell us a lot about the probability of life on the billions of planets we haven’t checked out yet, according to a study in The Astronomical Journal. The study employed a sophisticated statistical analysis to determine the minimum number of exoplanets that would need to be observed to generate useful answers about how many potentially inhabited planets are out there. They determined that finding no signs of life on 40 to 80 exoplanets would not, in fact, rule out that such life exists. Instead, such an answer would only whittle down the probability a bit.Searching for Life on ExoplanetsIt would mean that fewer than 10 percent to 20 percent of similar planets in the Milky Way potentially could support life. Extrapolating outward, that 10 percent, when applied to the entire Universe, still equates to about 10 billion potentially inhabited planets — so, it's not nothing.There is, however, a catch: uncertainty. Every observation contains a certain level of the unknown. Were things measured the right way? Did the researchers interpret the data correctly? Was there something the researchers overlooked?Such questions are more than just philosophical, the authors argue. They could determine how many resources are dedicated to a particular area."It's not just about how many planets we observe – it's about asking the right questions and how confident we can be in seeing or not seeing what we're searching for," Daniel Angerhausen, a physicist at ETH Zurich and an author of the paper, said in a press release. "If we're not careful and are overconfident in our abilities to identify life, even a large survey could lead to misleading results."Those questions will steer how missions such as the international Large Interferometer for Exoplanets (LIFE) mission led by ETH Zurich will be conducted. LIFE aims to analyze dozens of exoplanets that resemble Earth in terms of mass, radius, and temperature. The mission will seek signs of water and oxygen as well as other chemical components that indicate at least potential for life.Addressing Uncertainty for Upcoming MissionsAs a result of the statistical analysis, researches should change the questions they ask on upcoming missions, according to the press release.“To address sample uncertainty, for instance, the authors point out that specific and measurable questions such as, "Which fraction of rocky planets in a solar system's habitable zone show clear signs of water vapor, oxygen, and methane?" are preferable to the far more ambiguous, "How many planets have life?"Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Before joining Discover Magazine, Paul Smaglik spent over 20 years as a science journalist, specializing in U.S. life science policy and global scientific career issues. He began his career in newspapers, but switched to scientific magazines. His work has appeared in publications including Science News, Science, Nature, and Scientific American.

Its no secret that women and men experience pain differently, and there are a variety of reasons to cause this variance in pain perception. Hormones are known to influence pain sensitivity, body structure affects the density of pain receptors, and psychological and social factors play a role in how pain is perceived and expressed.With all these factors in mind, its surprising to learn that most pain research has historically ignored sex differences. As a result, many studies missed the opportunity to analyze or report these differences. The impact of this gender bias in pain research is clear: Women often struggle more than men to be taken seriously and treated appropriately, according to the International Association for the Study of Pain.Fortunately, research is improving. Today, studies are asking more questions and including female participants in both preclinical and clinical research. A recent study from University of California San Francisco, published in Science, reveals how the predominantly female hormones estrogen and progesterone help suppress pain by stimulating the production of opioids within the body.The Immune System's Role in PainUnderstanding pain requires acknowledging the significant role the immune system plays in it. T cells, which are a type of white blood cell, are known to influence pain amplification, although the exact mechanisms are still not fully understood.The new study focused on a recently discovered type of T cell called T regulatory cells (T-regs). These cells were found to reduce inflammation and are abundant in the protective layers of the spinal cord, known as the meninges. The research revealed that T-regs use the meninges to communicate with neurons near the skin. To better understand how T-regs function, the researchers used a proven method: they eliminated the cells using a toxin.Read More: Chronic Pain Makes You Think DifferentlyFemale Hormones Trigger Painkiller ProductionDisabling the T-regs showed an immediate effect: compared to their male counterparts, female mice became significantly more sensitive to pain, highlighting the importance of these immune cells in managing pain in females.Further investigation revealed that estrogen and progesterone, the primary female sex hormones, caused T-regs to produce the bodys natural painkiller: enkephalin, an opioid-like substance.The fact that theres a sex-dependent influence on these cells driven by estrogen and progesterone and that its not related at all to any immune function is very unusual, said lead author Elora Midavaine, a postdoctoral fellow in a press release.The Future of Pain ManagementThis discovery leaves the research team excited about the future of pain treatment. They hope to continue exploring the exact mechanisms behind this new pathway, which could lead to more effective pain treatments and raise awareness on the importance of studying the underlying mechanisms of pain management in women.One potential approach is targeting T-regs directly to increase the production of the painkiller enkephalin, which ultimately would benefit both women and men. If that approach is successful, it could really change the lives of the nearly 20% of Americans who experience chronic pain that is not adequately treated, said co-author Allan Basbaum in the news release.Understanding the role of sex hormones in pain regulation could also help doctors better support women, especially those going through menopause, who often report struggling with chronic pain. This knowledge could lead to more personalized pain treatments in the future.This article is not offering medical advice and should be used for informational purposes only.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:National Library of Medicine. Sex differences in pain: a brief review of clinical and experimental findingsInternational Association for the Study of Pain. Sex/Gender Biases in Pain Research and Clinical PracticeHaving worked as a biomedical research assistant in labs across three countries, Jenny excels at translating complex scientific concepts ranging from medical breakthroughs and pharmacological discoveries to the latest in nutrition into engaging, accessible content. Her interests extend to topics such as human evolution, psychology, and quirky animal stories. When shes not immersed in a popular science book, youll find her catching waves or cruising around Vancouver Island on her longboard.

When it comes to infant nutrition, parents are flooded with information on what's safe and what's not. However, one piece of advice that often catches new caregivers off guard is the strict guideline against giving babies water, especially during the first six months of life. After all, water is essential for survival so why exactly is it off-limits for infants?Pediatricians warn against giving water to babies younger than six months. Thats because doing so can be dangerous. Unlike older children and adults, babies' bodies are not yet equipped to handle extra water, and too much can lead to serious health risks.The Danger of Water IntoxicationFor adults, drinking water is straightforward and safe. Our mature kidneys can efficiently handle plenty of excess water, helping our bodies maintain a careful balance of fluids and electrolytes. Babies, however, have tiny kidneys that aren't yet fully equipped for the same task.One of the biggest dangers of giving water to an infant is water intoxication, a condition that occurs when too much water dilutes the concentration of sodium in the blood. This can lead to a dangerous electrolyte imbalance called hyponatremia, which causes cells to swell.When a baby drinks too much water, it can lead to symptoms such as:ConfusionDrowsinessPoor coordinationNauseaVomitingSeizuresAnd in severe cases, water intoxication can lead to coma or death.Even small amounts of water given regularly can disrupt an infants delicate electrolyte balance. Thats why most pediatricians including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend exclusively feeding your baby breast milk and/or formula for the first six months.Read More: What We Can Learn from Babies Gut MicrobiomesBreast Milk and Formula Provide Enough HydrationFor those first six months of life, breast milk or formula is all a baby needs. These liquids are specifically formulated to provide exactly the right amount of nutrients and hydration for an infant. Breast milk, for example, is about 87 percent water, and it is perfectly balanced with electrolytes and nutrients that exactly match your babys needs. Properly prepared infant formula closely mirrors the composition and water content of breast milk, likewise ensuring all your babys nutritional and hydration needs are met.Introducing additional water to your babys diet can result in a lack or imbalance of vital nutrients, affecting their nutritional and immune status. Furthermore, a systematic review of 18 studies found that breast milk or formula alone meets all the hydration needs for infants under six months, even in warmer climates.Risks of Nutritional ImbalanceAnother major risk associated with giving additional water to babies under six months is nutritional imbalance. Babies have very small stomachs, so filling them up with water means theyll consume less breast milk or formula. Less milk means fewer essential calories and nutrients like proteins, fats, vitamins, and minerals, potentially hindering their growth and development.Some research has shown that babies frequently given water in the first months of life may not gain adequate weight, putting them at risk for developmental delays and nutritional deficiencies. Thats why skipping water in the early months isnt just a suggestion its essential for your babys healthy development.When Is Water Safe for Babies?The consensus from pediatricians worldwide, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the AAP, is clear: You should not give water to babies younger than six months. After six months, you can introduce small amounts of water as your baby starts solid foods. However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), you should not give a child more than about 4 to 8 ounces of water per day (a few ounces at a time) until their first birthday.Although parents should not give their babies water before six months of age, after six months, it's crucial to introduce water safely and in moderation. Make sure that water complements rather than replaces breast milk or formula. Infants' first shifting to solid foods can benefit from occasional sips of water, as it helps them learn to drink from a cup, prevents tooth decay (if the water contains fluoride), and generally gets them acquainted with water as a beverage.In rare cases, such as severe dehydration caused by illness, a healthcare professional might advise very specific electrolyte solutions designed for infants not just plain water. These specially formulated drinks have the critical balance of electrolytes and hydration your child needs to recover safely.Keeping Babies Safe and HydratedIt might seem counterintuitive that something as basic as water could pose a risk to babies, but in the early months of life, even the most essential substances can be harmful if introduced too soon. A babys body is uniquely tuned to thrive on breast milk or formula alone. Anything else, even water, can throw off that delicate balance. Thats why understanding the reasoning behind these medical guidelines isnt just helpful its crucial for protecting your childs health.In short, babies cant have water simply because their bodies aren't ready for it yet. So, by sticking to breast milk or formula during the first six months, youll be giving your child exactly what they need to start off life strong.This article is not offering medical advice and should be used for informational purposes only.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Cleveland Clinic. Babies Shouldnt Drink Water Heres WhyMayo Clinic. HyponatremiaSt. Louis Children's Hospital. Water Intoxication in InfantsPubMed. Overview of Nutrients in Human MilkHealthychildren.org. How to Safely Prepare Baby Formula With WaterHealthychildren.org. Recommended Drinks for Children Age 5 & YoungerNationwide Children's. Dehydration: Giving Liquids at HomeJake Parks is a freelance writer and editor who specializes in covering science news. He has previously written for Astronomy magazine, Discover Magazine, The Ohio State University, the University of Wisconson-Madison, and more.