April 24, 20253 min read84 Percent of Corals Impacted in Mass Bleaching EventThe world is experiencing the most intense global coral bleaching event on record, with 84 percent of reefs experiencing heat stress from warming oceansBy Andrea Thompson edited by Dean VisserFish swim around a bleached coral. d3_plus D.Naruse @ Japan/Getty ImagesAll around the world, from the Great Barrier Reef to the Florida Keys, the bright, vibrant colors of coral reefs have turned ghostly white in vast swaths as our planet has experienced the largest mass coral bleaching event on record. The crisis could have enormous consequences for ocean ecosystems and the global economy.Some 84 percent of the world’s reefs have been hit by bleaching since January 1, 2023, according to the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), a global partnership among various countries and organizations. This is the fourth global bleaching event since 1998, and it surpasses the record set by the previous one, which lasted from 2014 to 2017 and affected two thirds of the ocean’s reefs.What is coral bleaching?On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Corals are symbiotic animals: they get their bright colors from algae that live within them. The corals supply the algae with needed nitrogen, and the algae in turn supply the corals with the carbon they use as food. But if the water gets too warm, the algae release toxic compounds, and the corals expel the algae, leaving the corals with clear tissues through which their white skeleton is visible. If temperatures cool again, algae can recolonize the corals, and the reef can heal. But during the time the algae are gone, the corals become weakened and more susceptible to disease and pollution—and if the algae stay away too long, the corals die.That’s not just a concern for people who enjoy diving to view the teeming reefs; bleaching has potentially huge ecological and economic ramifications. Reefs are extremely biodiverse—they are sometimes called the “rainforests of the sea”—and support about one third of all known marine life. Corals also protect shorelines from erosion and storms. Some research has estimated they contribute about $9.8 trillion to the global economy each year.During the current bleaching event, “82 countries, territories and economies” have suffered damage as a result, the ICRI says.What is causing the mass bleaching event?The event has been driven by persistent, exceptionally hot ocean temperatures, fueled by global warming. The average global temperature is about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) higher than it was in the late 19th century, and the bulk of that excess heat has been absorbed by the oceans. The average global ocean surface temperature reached a record-warm level in 2024, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.A map showing the maximum extent of coral bleaching in 2024. From blue to dark purple, the colors show increasing threats of bleaching and coral mortality. Light blue indicates no stress to reefs, level 2 (dark red) indicates a risk of mortality to heat-sensitive corals and dark purple indicates a risk of death to 80 percent or more of corals in a reef.NOAABecause of the exceptional heat, NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch program had to add three new levels to the agency’s Bleaching Alert Scale in 2023. Previously, the highest level was 2, which indicated risk of mortality in heat-sensitive corals. Now the highest level means that more than 80 percent of corals on a reef are at risk of dying.As the planet’s temperatures continue to rise, so does the threat that more reefs may disappear. “We may never see the heat stress that causes bleaching dropping below the threshold that triggers a global event,” said Mark Eakin, corresponding secretary for the International Coral Reef Society and former chief of Coral Reef Watch, to the Associated Press. “We’re looking at something that’s completely changing the face of our planet and the ability of our oceans to sustain lives and livelihoods.”How can coral reefs be protected?Many scientists are studying corals to see what types might best withstand marine heat waves. Researchers are also investigating whether coral fragments can be propagated in labs and replanted to restore reefs.But the most effective ways to protect and preserve reefs is to minimize humans’ effects by curtailing pollution that washes into the ocean from land, ending overfishing and curbing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.“The best way to protect coral reefs is to address the root cause of climate change. And that means reducing the human emissions that are mostly from burning of fossil fuels,” Eakin told the Associated Press. “Everything else is looking more like a Band-Aid rather than a solution.”

April 24, 20254 min readCelebrate Hubble Space Telescope’s 35th Birthday with Stunning ImagesHappy anniversary to the Hubble Space Telescope, which launched on April 24, 1990By Meghan Bartels edited by Lee BillingsThe Tarantula Nebula, located about 161,000 light-years away in the Large Magellanic Cloud bordering our Milky Way, is packed with ionized hydrogen gas dotted by supernova remnants. NASA/ESAThirty-five years ago today a revolutionary new era of astronomy began when the Hubble Space Telescope, tucked onboard the space shuttle Discovery, blasted off Earth into history. The next day a robotic arm tipped the telescope into orbit from the shuttle’s cargo bay. Within a month Hubble had truly begun its mission, gazing out at the cosmos for NASA and the European Space Agency with its 2.4-meter-wide starlight-gathering mirror—the largest ever launched to space at the time.NGC 6302, known as the Butterfly Nebula, is located between 2,500 and 3,800 light-years away in the constellation Scorpius. The image includes near-ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared light. At the heart of the nebula lie one or more dying stars that are periodically flinging layers of gas out into space. This gas—reaching temperatures of more than 36,000 degrees Fahrenheit and speeds of more than 600,000 miles per hour—becomes the “wings” of the butterfly.NASA, ESA, and J. Kastner (RIT) (CC BY 4.0)In the years since, Hubble has gathered more than 1.6 million observations and 430 terabytes of data. The telescope has revealed that supermassive black holes nestle at the heart of most large galaxies, Jupiter’s icy moon Europa may be shooting plumes of water out into space and, in the distant future, our Milky Way galaxy will likely collide with our neighbor, Andromeda.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.But the mission almost flopped.The Hubble Space Telescope was decades in the works, even making a cameo appearance in a Superman comic in 1972, before it reached space in 1990. But after Hubble’s deployment, as the telescope began operations, astronomers realized its vision was blurry and traced the issue to a tiny imperfection in the telescope’s mirror.A pair of planetary nebulae, IC 418 (left) and MyCn18 (right). IC 418 is located about 2,000 light-years away from Earth in the direction of the constellation Lepus. At its heart is the remains of a red giant star that spat its outer layers of gas into space, creating the lattice of gas illuminated by ultraviolet light. MyCn18, located about 8,000 light-years away, glows with ionized nitrogen (red), hydrogen (green) and doubly ionized oxygen (blue).NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA); Acknowledgment: Dr. Raghvendra Sahai (JPL) and Dr. Arsen R. Hajian (USNO) (CC BY 4.0) (left); NASA, ESA, Raghvendra Sahai and John Trauger (JPL), the WFPC2 science team (CC BY 4.0) (right)Astoundingly, that mirror is still in use today aboard the observatory. Fortunately, Hubble was uniquely designed to be serviced in orbit by astronauts. NASA’s first (and most urgent) servicing mission flew in December 1993; during five separate spacewalks, astronauts installed a new primary camera able to counteract Hubble’s blurred vision, as well a bulky new apparatus that corrected the light that fed into the observatory’s original suite of instruments.The Hubble Space Telescope and a spacewalking NASA astronaut are seen in orbit around Earth during STS-61, the 1993 servicing mission to correct the observatory’s optics.NASAM104, nicknamed the Sombrero Galaxy, is located about 30 million light-years away in the constellation Virgo. M104 creates stars surprisingly slowly and is home to a mysteriously quiescent central supermassive black hole.ESA/Hubble & NASA, K. Noll (CC BY 4.0)Additional shuttle missions in 1997, 1999, 2002 and 2009 also visited the observatory, extending its lifetime and expanding its view each time with new hardware and better instruments.The galaxy NGC 1566 is located about 60 million light-years from Earth in the constellation Dorado. NGC 1566 is what scientists call a weakly barred or intermediate spiral galaxy and belongs to a group of gravitationally bound galaxies that astronomers are still working to understand.ESA/Hubble & NASA, D. Calzetti and the LEGUS team, R. Chandar (CC BY 4.0)The results have been nothing short of breathtaking. Hubble’s position well above most of Earth’s atmosphere allows it to see the cosmos unhindered by the tempests and turbulence that all ground-based observatories face. That privileged vantage point has profoundly shaped our understanding of the solar system and universe around us.In our own neighborhood, Hubble has studied the changing weather on the outer planets, discovered moons orbiting Pluto and watched the once-in-a-lifetime impact of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 on Jupiter scar the giant planet with dark spots as big as Earth. It has even glimpsed the sun, in a feat it was most definitely not designed to attempt.Hubble used its ultraviolet vision to capture an image of auroras on Jupiter in 2016 as NASA’s Juno spacecraft was arriving in orbit around the massive planet.NASA, ESA, and J. Nichols (University of Leicester); Acknowledgment: A. Simon (NASA/GSFC) and the OPAL team (CC BY 4.0)In more distant reaches, Hubble provided conclusive proof that supermassive black holes exist and made the first observations of astronomical objects colliding as well as of the surface of a star besides our sun. And in a remarkable triumph, it managed to capture a first-of-its-kind snapshot of a supernova explosion that had been successfully predicted by astronomers.The dense globular cluster ESO 520-21, or Palomar 6 (top), is located near the center of the Milky Way in the constellation Ophiuchus. The Carina Nebula (bottom) is a star-forming region located about 7,500 light-years away from Earth in the constellation Carina. The pillar of dust and gas seen in this image stretches about three light-years tall and is being eroded away by radiation from hot newborn stars embedded in the column.ESA/Hubble and NASA, R. Cohen (CC BY 4.0) (top); NASA, ESA, M. Livio and the Hubble 20th Anniversary Team (STScI) (CC BY 4.0) (bottom)And, of course, it has taken some of the most iconic space photographs we have—among them, the stunning “Pillars of Creation” image of a stellar nursery known as the Eagle Nebula.For 35 years Hubble has pushed the boundaries of possibility, transforming our view of the cosmos each time it beams the universe’s light down to Earth. How long it will continue to do so, however, remains unclear. Since the 2009 servicing mission, the NASA shuttles that ferried astronauts to Hubble retired, and the hazards of space have taken their toll. Hubble’s hardware failures are mounting, and the observatory’s ongoing operations depend on an ever-increasing number of workarounds and improvisations. At this point, even the most optimistic “Hubble hugger” astronomers admit that the observatory’s days are numbered.Although Hubble is most known for its iconic photographs, it gathers other observations as well, such as this single exposure taken by the observatory’s Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph. The image maps gas zipping around the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy M84, located about 50 million light-years away from Earth. From the spectrograph’s data, which show that the gas is moving as fast as 880,000 miles per hour, astronomers determined that the black hole contains at least 300 million times the mass of our sun.NASA, Gary Bower, Richard Green (NOAO), the STIS Instrument Definition TeamIn June 2024 NASA announced that failing machinery was forcing the observatory to begin operating with only one fully functional gyroscope, which slows the telescope’s work. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere is slowly but surely pulling Hubble down to Earth, bringing the observatory ever closer to fiery destruction, although reentry is not expected until next decade.NASA launched Hubble’s successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, in 2021, although unlike Hubble, JWST is stationed so far beyond Earth’s orbit that crewed servicing missions are too daunting to attempt. The two telescopes mostly collect data independently of each other but occasionally team up, combining their powers to produce spectacular results.NGC 1999, located about 1,350 light-years away from Earth, is a reflection nebula created by debris from the newborn star V380 Orionis, visible at the center of the image. The image relies on data gathered by Hubble’s Wide Field Planetary Camera 2—the replacement camera installed during the first servicing mission—in 1999.ESA/Hubble & NASA, ESO, K. Noll (CC BY 4.0)Despite its age, Hubble may yet be reborn. In 2022 billionaire Jared Isaacman, who has paid SpaceX undisclosed sums for several private spaceflights with the company, proposed a new servicing mission for the aging telescope. NASA officials seriously considered the proposal but in 2024 declined to pursue Isaacman’s idea.The lenticular galaxy NGC 4753 is located about 60 million light-years away from Earth in the constellation Virgo. Lenticular galaxies are elliptical objects; Hubble sees this particular galaxy nearly edge on. Scientists believe that the galaxy developed after a merger some 1.3 billion years ago.ESA/Hubble & NASA, L. Kelsey (CC BY 4.0)Now Isaacman is President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead NASA. Senators conducted his confirmation hearing earlier this month; a vote has not yet been scheduled. It’s not clear how ethics rules will impact Isaacman’s relationship with SpaceX should he be confirmed or whether he would have the authority to resurrect the servicing mission proposal.NGC 7635, nicknamed the Bubble Nebula, is located about 7,100 light-years away from Earth in the constellation Cassiopeia. The nebula is about seven light-years wide; at its heart is a star 45 times as massive as our sun that is spitting gas into space at speeds as high as four million miles per hour.NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) (CC BY 4.0)And larger issues face the agency than the fate of any single observatory. Hubble and JWST are the only astrophysics telescopes that would continue to receive funding amid massive science cuts included in the Trump administration’s budget request for NASA. (That said, budget allocations are made not by the president but by Congress, which has a long history of reinstating money to slashed space science projects.)Such is the limitation of an astronomical marvel: while Hubble has spotted a star as it was less than one billion years after the big bang, even it cannot see its own future.

OpinionApril 24, 20254 min readSlashing NASA’s Programs Will Squander America’s Place in SpaceThe Trump administration’s plans to cut NASA’s science missions will destroy the U.S. space legacyBy Louis Friedman Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean during the second moonwalk EVA. NASA/Recall Pictures/Alamy Stock PhotoFor more than half a century planetary exploration and space science have been a hallmark of American achievement and excellence. From Mercury to Pluto and beyond, we have gained enormous understanding about planetary origins and evolution. We have learned about the atmospheric, surface and interior dynamics of other worlds. All those discoveries have carried implications for what’s happening here on Earth. In classrooms around the world, exploring new worlds and probing the mysteries of the universe is an emblem of America.But that may now end; the Trump administration is poised to take the chainsaw to space science, just as it has to almost everything else in the U.S. science portfolio. Trump officials are planning huge, destructive cuts for space science, according to news reports, likely killing all new mission plans for this decade, including the long-sought, all-important Mars Sample Return mission. This flight was meant to return now-waiting samples from the red planet.China is already leading the way to the moon and Mars with robotic vehiclelike rovers and sample returns and is also likely to do so with human missions. The U.S. human space program, meanwhile, is bogged down with a stumbling Artemis program, built with a convoluted architecture marked so far by failures and delays in nearly every major component. The latest is the repeated failure of SpaceX’s Starship, which twice now has exploded in flight. Reminiscent of the 1980s, when we paused planetary exploration after the success of Viking and launch of Voyager 1 and 2, the U.S. has iced new Mars missions, with plans to cancel Mars Sample Return, and redirected our once great lunar capability to small experimental landers built by inexperienced new companies. Beyond specific missions, the loss of space science research capability will be a generational calamity.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.So what? Does it matter if the U.S. is No. 2 on other worlds? Space is a pretty distant arena—even more distant if it is the moon, Mars and beyond you are thinking of. Compared with the “America First” emphasis on AI chips, rare earth metals, tariffs and trade wars, promoting Teslas and cutting foreign aid, space is a minor political and economic player. But we are becoming No. 2 in such areas of focus too (see China’s advances in DeepSeek AI, BYD electric cars and developing hydropower in Africa). Our failures on Earth are not unrelated to our narrow and shortsighted vision for the moon and Mars, and the broader dismissal of science.Focusing inward is what China’s Ming dynasty did in the 15th century and the Portuguese and Dutch did in the 18th. Our step back from exploration of new worlds is one deep into mediocrity or even obscurity. It’s tied together—the Apollo program was not about a race to the moon; it was about a race between geopolitical powers to prove their economic and technological superiority to the world. So too now. Africans will feel the U.S. retreat as we withdraw humanitarian and infrastructure aid. They will also feel the U.S. retreat from science and exploration just as China goes forward with theirs.I don’t think it matters to Africans if it is Chinese or Americans there, engaged and helping them. I also don’t think it matters to the moon or Mars whether it is China or the U.S. building things there. But if we accept mediocrity and turn our focus inward, it will matter to us, especially to our children. The isolationist or island mentality expresses to our children and to the world that we have given up on ambition and growth and understanding the universe, that we will be satisfied with being less than we can be.Curiosity rover created this self-portrait at Gale Crater on Sol 2082 (June 15, 2018) using the Mars Hand Lens Imager, or MAHLI.NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSSThe planned decimation of American space science, coupled with the total dysfunction in our human space program, squanders the admirable U.S. record and accomplishments. If these budget cuts go through, we will leave collected samples on Mars and forego future exploration. What little money will remain will be given to Boeing’s troubled Space Launch System human space flight vehicle and SpaceX’s exploding Starship—a vehicle designed for Elon Musk’s Mars fantasy, rather than for the needs of the U.S. space program.There is no doubt we could do more with less. NASA is wasting money racing again to put footprints on the moon, this time to lose. Instead, we could play to our strengths. Imagine a telerobotic lunar base with broad societal and international participation, instead of the two-people-per-year plan to put boots on the moon we now have. We could “commercialize” the moon not with fanciful mining ideas, but with private and public partners operating vehicles, conducting science observations and even playing sports and games. Similarly, we can lead the world into the solar system with virtual exploration opportunities for all. And we can bring home those samples from Mars—possibly with the discovery of extraterrestrial life. This kind of American creativity would cost far less than our current program—but it will not have a chance in a budget-slashing environment where we throw out the babies and bury our heads in the bathwater.This can only be enabled by government. Private companies will not conduct science and astronomy on the moon (nor send rovers or bring back samples from Mars). Nor will they fly the successors to Hubble and Webb such as the Nancy Grace Roman telescope, which the administration also proposes to cancel.Space exploration is meant to create a positive future. The legacy of Apollo, and of our robot explorers in the solar system is a real and worthy America first legacy, one that proclaims American leadership based on a peaceful and global aspiration: for the benefit of all humankind. That legacy should not be squandered.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

April 23, 20254 min readWhy New Jersey Is Actually a Place with Major Wildfire RiskA forest fire that erupted in New Jersey and spread overnight highlights the major wildfire risk faced by the state and other urban areasBy Stephanie Pappas edited by Jeanna BrynerFirefighters try to extinguish a fast-moving brush fire along on November 19, 2024 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesA forest fire that erupted in New Jersey yesterday morning was spurred by winds and dry weather, fulfilling a prediction by state officials that the state would see an active fire season this spring.The Jones Road Fire has burned 12,000 acres, more than the average area burned by wildfires in the state in an entire year. A drought warning has been in effect in New Jersey since November 2024, which means that many drought status indicators, such as current drinking water supplies, are below normal. And after a busy fall fire season, spring kicked off with an above-average number of fires as well. The Jones Road Fire, which forced evacuations in Ocean County, New Jersey, threatened hundreds of homes and businesses in a populated area.How Did the New Jersey Fire Spread?On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.State fire officials have not yet determined the cause of the fire, but it grew in dry, windy conditions. The blaze started at the edge of the Pinelands, a region of pine forests known for its wildfire risk. In fact, the Pinelands’ landscape has been shaped by fire—if it didn’t regularly burn, the ecosystem would transition into an oak forest, says David Robinson, New Jersey’s state climatologist and a professor at Rutgers University.“Traditionally, spring is fire season down in the Pinelands, so as far as seasonal timing to this fire, there’s nothing unusual,” Robinson says. “The fact that [the fire] spread so quickly may be a testament to the fact that it hasn’t rained in over 10 days.”Because of New Jersey’s population density, the state experiences a lot of what research ecologist Michael Gallagher of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Research Station calls “interface fires,” which are fires that start where human habitation bumps up against wildland. “Fires as small as an acre frequently threaten homes,” Gallagher says.But the Jones Road fire moved quickly into an exurb-type environment with numerous buildings in its path. Wind-borne embers sped the fire along, starting spot fires that ignited new blazes, Gallagher says. His research has shown that in the spring, the sun tends to heat the south side of pine trees in the forests of the Pinelands, causing the bark to dry and curl. These curls ignite easily in a fire. Winds blowing from the north are then well poised to catch these tiny flaming brands, blowing them ahead of the main fire.How Did New Jersey’s Drought Worsen Fire Conditions?October 2024 was the driest month in the state in 130 years, Robinson says. Though fires generally peak in spring in New Jersey, it saw a busy fire season in the fall, as did much of the Northeast.Winter brought some relief. This year, however, New Jersey’s fire season, which typically starts in March, began in earnest in January, state officials said in a March 3 news conference. Between January 1 and March 3, the state saw 214 fires burn through 514 acres, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection reported. In comparison, 69 fires burned 21 acres during the same period in 2024.“We’re continuing just where we left off last year,” said state fire chief Bill Donnelly in the briefing.Precipitation improved somewhat in March and April, Robinson says, but it hasn’t recovered to the point that the state is out of the drought. “The news is all kind of good, but we still have to remember we are in a drought warning,” he says. And while the overall trend has been toward more moisture, the Pinelands area had been going through a mini dry spell before the fire began, with almost two weeks without rain, he says. The sandy soil and pine needles in the regions don’t hold on to water for long.“This area dries out very quickly,” Robinson says.That means the weather was ripe for fire, and wind gusts of up to 25 miles per hour quickly whipped the fire toward inhabited areas.“Last night [the fire] was on the eastern end of the Pinelands, near the [Garden State] Parkway, and it hopped the Parkway and headed toward the coast in a populated area. So [this was] a real worrisome situation,” Robinson says.How Will Climate Change Affect New Jersey’s Fire Risk?Wildfires are aggressively managed in New Jersey, with prescribed burns to reduce fuel and quick suppression when fires do ignite, Robinson says. These evolving actions should tamp down any climate-change-related increase in risk and make it difficult to compare the state’s fire outlook with a preindustrial “normal.” New Jersey has a history of large fires, including a multiple-fire outbreak in 1963 known as Black Saturday, which burned 183,000 acres and killed seven people.Long-term projections suggest the state will get a little wetter in a warming world, though rain is not expected to become more frequent, but rather will likely be heavier when it does fall. Warming temperatures could nudge the state’s fire risk a little bit higher as fuels dry out faster, however.“Things become volatile pretty quickly,” Robinson says.

April 23, 20256 min readMusk Funded the Carbon-Removal XPrize but Is Now Slashing Climate ResearchElon Musk funded an XPrize for carbon removal, but his actions in the Trump administration have cut funding for climate researchBy Corbin Hiar & E&E News Tesla CEO Elon Musk went from an environmental hero to a MAGA hardliner. Toby Melville/AFP via Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | Time magazine selected Elon Musk as its "person of the year" in 2021 after the billionaire entrepreneur upended the car market, reinvigorated the space industry and funded a $100 million competition for climate technologies that would remove carbon dioxide from the air and sea.But Musk won’t attend Time’s event in New York City on Wednesday to fete the winners of that groundbreaking contest. The $50 million grand prize will go to Mati Carbon, a Houston-based startup founded three years ago that works with crushed rocks and subsistence farmers to soak up climate pollution.It's unclear why Musk — an environmental hero turned MAGA diehard — is skipping the capstone event for a climate contest bankrolled via his eponymous foundation. Neither he nor Time responded to requests for comment. The XPrize will be announced at the Time100 Summit, the magazine's annual event featuring 100 influential people.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.In addition to running electric-vehicle-maker Tesla and the aerospace firm SpaceX, Musk is leading President Donald Trump’s effort to downsize the federal government. The Department of Government Efficiency has slashed climate funding for research, projects and agencies."We live in very complicated times," said Nikki Batchelor, who led the Musk-funded carbon removal competition at the XPrize Foundation. Prior to joining the nonprofit, she worked as an innovation adviser for the U.S. Agency for International Development — the first federal bureau effectively shuttered by Musk. (Musk has no ties to the three-decade-old foundation aside from being a donor.)"He was one of the leading voices trying to push clean energy forward and think about innovative solutions to tackling climate change," she said of Musk, the world's richest person. "We've continued on with that."Batchelor spoke with POLITICO's E&E News before XPrize publicly announced the final carbon removal contest winners, each of which removed at least 1,000 tons of CO2 in a year and provided a business plan for how they'll reach 1 million tons annually. Since 2019, carbon removal companies have locked away about 650,000 tons in total — less than the annual emissions of two natural gas power plants.The runners-up were NetZero, Vaulted Deep and Undo Carbon, which netted prizes of $15 million, $8 million and $5 million respectively. Undo Carbon uses an enhanced rock weathering approach similar to Mati to remove CO2 from the air faster than the natural carbon cycle. NetZero and Vaulted Deep both lock away CO2 by preventing carbon-rich organic matter from biodegrading.Commercializing carbon removal technologies is important because the world is unlikely to reduce the burning of oil, gas and coal quickly enough to prevent the buildup of dangerous levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans. As a result, climate scientists have concluded that it will be necessary in the coming decades to increase the Earth's carbon removal capacity by billions of metric tons annually.During the course of the four-year XPrize competition, then-President Joe Biden signed legislation and oversaw the establishment of programs that sought to reduce the nation's dependence on fossil fuels and spur carbon removal innovation. Now the Trump administration — with help from Musk and a Republican-controlled Congress — is moving to undo many of those federal climate initiatives, which Trump has derided as a "green new scam."Elon Musk with Peter Diamandis, founder and executive chair of XPrize, during the presentation of a prize for children's literacy in 2019.Jesse Grant/Getty Images for Global Learning XPRIZEAs a result, critics say Musk has gone from one of the carbon removal industry's earliest supporters to perhaps its biggest threat."Musk sold himself out, and I think that's reprehensible," said Wil Burns, the co-director of the Institute for Responsible Carbon Removal at American University, who helped set up guidelines for the XPrize contest.Musk’s $100M tweetMusk announced the contest four years ago with a cryptic tweet that seemed to conflate technologies to remove carbon that's already been emitted with ones that capture CO2 from smokestacks."Am donating $100M towards a prize for best carbon capture technology," he wrote in January 2021. "Details next week."On Earth Day that year, XPrize founder Peter Diamandis joined Musk near Cape Canaveral, Florida, for a livestreamed conversation about the carbon removal contest. Musk, who wore a black T-shirt and no shoes, downplayed the risks of climate change and said he was more concerned about "super-advanced" artificial intelligence and "population collapse."At that point, carbon removal technologies were widely viewed as theoretically possible rather than scientifically sound.The consensus began to shift later in 2021 when the Swiss firm Climeworks opened the world's first commercial-scale carbon removal facility outside of Reykjavík, Iceland. In the U.S., lawmakers passed a bipartisan infrastructure bill that included $3.5 billion to establish four hubs capable of removing 1 million tons of CO2 per year using the direct air capture technology Climeworks had pioneered.The following year, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that deploying tech to filter CO2 from the air and oceans would be necessary to avoid catastrophic global warming.The economic case for carbon removal got a boost in 2022 when a coalition of tech companies committed to purchasing $925 million for carbon removal by the end of the decade and U.S. lawmakers expanded subsidies for direct air capture.Crushed rock and small farmsMusk helped set in motion a wave of support from big business and U.S. policymakers that led to a surge in carbon removal startups. Of the 1,300 teams that took part in the Musk-funded carbon removal competition, XPrize estimates that half were formed after the contest began.That includes Mati, the grand prize winner, which is a public benefit corporation owned by a nonprofit. The unusual legal structure allows the company to prioritize its mission to deploy carbon removal while benefiting subsistence farmers in the Global South, according to CEO Shantanu Agarwal. He is a former oil field services engineer and venture capitalist who previously founded the direct air capture firm Sustaera.“The funding cuts that Musk is effectuating, and lopping off expertise in government that's really critical to drive this development, certainly outweighs whatever benefits we get from the XPrize.” —Wil Burns, co-director of the Institute for Responsible Carbon Removal at American University"I saw the potential of enhanced rock weathering as a much more scalable pathway right now, in the current world, and the significant co-benefits, which it brings to the smallholder farmers," Agarwal said.Mati works with farmers in India, Zambia and Tanzania to spread locally sourced minerals on their fields. The crushed rocks soak up carbon and reduce runoff for the rain-dependent farms. The company also sells carbon removal credits and shares the revenue with the farmers, who are vulnerable to drought, extreme weather and other climate perils."We have to create business models which add value to human life [and] at the same time solve for climate," Agarwal said. "You can't just do climate in isolation. It just doesn't work. It cannot be done because humans are not wired that way, to go and clean a common good."Mati's $50 million prize is five times more than the company had previously raised, Agarwal said. The infusion of cash should allow it to expand to several new countries faster than it had planned and reduce the cost of its removals to $100 per ton, down from nearly $400 today.The Musk effectBut the potential good Mati can do for farmers and the climate pales in comparison to the work previously done by the federal government via agencies like USAID, which spent a combined $11 billion on humanitarian and agricultural assistance in fiscal 2024.Musk in February called USAID "a criminal organization" and said it was time for the agency "to die." The Trump administration's 2026 budget request is expected to complete the dismantling of the six-decade-old agency and roll its remaining programs into the State Department.Mati and other carbon removal companies have also benefited from collaborations with researchers in academia and the federal government. The Trump administration has canceled thousands of university research grants and purged the U.S. bureaucracy of much of its carbon removal know-how."The funding cuts that Musk is effectuating, and lopping off expertise in government that's really critical to drive this development, certainly outweighs whatever benefits we get from the XPrize," said Burns, the carbon removal expert who is also an environmental policy professor at Northwestern University. Those efforts have "tainted it, to be associated with him.""That's unfortunate," Burns added, acknowledging the significance of the capital and publicity the competition has provided for the winners. "A lot of people are going to hear Musk and just walk away."XPrize, which previously collaborated with the divisive billionaire on a global education contest, seems ready to move past Musk.Batchelor, the group’s executive director of carbon removal, said "there are no conversations" at this time with the Musk Foundation about supporting future competitions.XPrize hopes the announcement of the winners can be "a bright spot for folks in climate and the carbon removal industry, especially, to rally around how much progress we've made in four years," she said. "It can also be a jumping off point for others to build momentum around scaling, despite some of those distractions in the background."Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

April 23, 20253 min readLion Bite to the Butt May Be First Proof of Human-Animal Gladiatorial CombatThe first physical evidence of Roman gladiators fighting animals has been found in skeletal remains from EnglandBy Gayoung Lee edited by Allison Parshall1st century AD Roman relief portraying gladiators and lions fighting. DEA/A. DAGLI ORTI/De Agostini via Getty ImagesRoman gladiators’ fights to the death have inspired morbid fascination for millennia. But for something seemingly so well-documented, it’s rare for archaeologists find physical evidence of such combat in the form of Roman gladiators’ remains. Most of what we know about the fights comes from indirect records, such as texts or illustrations that described the bloody, raucous events. Among such records, some depicted so-called beast hunts, in which gladiators were pitted against predators that included lions, tigers and even elephants.Now archaeologists have found the first physical evidence of a gladiator locked in combat with one of these animals—which appears to have left a huge, lion-sized bite mark on the fighter’s butt. The findings were published on Wednesday in PLOS One.Tim Thompson, a forensic anthropologist at Maynooth University in Ireland, spends a lot of time examining the disfigured skeletons of people who died long ago. Around 2017 he was studying human remains uncovered during a 2004 excavation of Driffield Terrace—a site in York, England, that evidence suggests was a gladiator burial ground during the Roman Empire. Thompson and his colleagues were quickly drawn to a skeleton that sported a weirdly shaped bite marks on its pelvis.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Lesion on the right ilium of 6DT19.“Unique osteological evidence for human-animal gladiatorial combat in Roman Britain,” Thompson TJU, Errickson D, McDonnell C, Holst M, Caffell A, Pearce J, et al., in PLoS ONE, Vol. 20, No. 4, Article No. e0319847, Published online April 23, 2025Lesions on the left iliac spine of 6DT19“Unique osteological evidence for human-animal gladiatorial combat in Roman Britain,” Thompson TJU, Errickson D, McDonnell C, Holst M, Caffell A, Pearce J, et al., in PLoS ONE, Vol. 20, No. 4, Article No. e0319847, Published online April 23, 2025When the bones were first unearthed, archaeologists wouldn’t have had the technology to probe the intriguing marks much further. Thompson and his team wanted to know what caused them—and now had the laboratory techniques to find out. They collaborated with zoos to create three-dimensional scans of bite marks on leftover carcasses that were made by types of animals, such as lions and cheetahs, that had been used in Roman gladiatorial shows.They also chemically analyzed the ancient Roman bones to confirm other traits, such as the deceased person’s sex and nutritional condition—clues that could help determine whether this skeleton could truly have come from a Roman Empire–era gladiator. The researchers say they were also able to estimate that the injury’s timing was roughly concurrent with that of the fighter’s death.The team compared the scans of the modern carnivore bites to those on the ancient bones. The likely culprit of the latter: a lion. Marble artifacts from Roman Britain depict lions mauling gladiators, Thompson says, but no confirmed archaeological evidence had been found. Some experts have also speculated that if this human-animal combat indeed occurred, it only happened in Rome—not in the far-flung edges of the empire. “The assumption has always been that maybe that [artifacts from Roman Britain] are just reflections of things happening in Rome, almost tapping into Roman myth,” Thompson says. “What we’re suggesting now, actually, is that we have evidence for that spectacle happening [here in York].”Lesion on the left iliac spine of 6DT19.“Unique osteological evidence for human-animal gladiatorial combat in Roman Britain,” Thompson TJU, Errickson D, McDonnell C, Holst M, Caffell A, Pearce J, et al., in PLoS ONE, Vol. 20, No. 4, Article No. e0319847, Published online April 23, 2025The new finding not only offers fascinating clues into the culture of gladiatorial combat but also highlights the astonishingly far-reaching influence of the Roman Empire. “This was one of the key ways that Roman culture was spread—a spectacle,” says Anna Osterholtz, a bioarchaeologist at Mississippi State University, who was not involved in the new study. “Because you would also have executions that would be taking place as part of the games, it taught things like social roles and social norms.”Kathryn Marklein, a biological anthropologist at the University of Louisville, who was also not involved in the study, points to the exorbitant cost these fights would have incurred. Lions are not native to England, so it would have required considerable expense and effort to bring the animals all the way to York. “Putting this quantity of resources into an event is a testament to the importance of violent spectacles in Roman provinces,” Marklein says.Skeletal remains can reveal a great deal about pieces of human history that would otherwise be lost to time. “Our lives are inscribed into our bones,” Osterholtz says. These remains can tell us about “people’s lives that weren’t considered important enough to be written down, that were never part of the official record.”

OpinionApril 23, 20254 min readFiring Science Advisors Will Leave the U.S. SenselessFrom public health to space exploration, advisory panels have helped U.S. agencies make smarter decisions. The Trump administration wants to kill themBy Dan Vergano Rob Dobi/Getty ImagesIn the Trump administration’s ongoing race to make the U.S. poorer, sicker and dumber, one more stomp on the accelerator comes from cuts aimed against its federal advisory committees. Whether infectious diseases or space exploration, these panels of experts are the unpaid brains behind the brawn of the U.S. government.With its signature disdain for anything smacking of smarts or competence, the Trump administration now aims to destroy or neutralize them. In a February 19 executive order, Donald Trump directed his staff to compile a list of “Federal Advisory Committees that should be terminated on grounds that they are unnecessary.” The order directly terminated the HHS Advisory Committee on Long COVID (a syndrome afflicting 23 million people in the U.S. right now) and the Health Equity Advisory Committee, which sought to help underserved people access care like blood pressure medication or postpartum treatment, through Medicare and Medicaid. Since then NOAA has closed several of its advisory panels, NSF closed a dozen, NASA has consolidated its wildly disparate astrophysics, biological and physical sciences, Earth science, heliophysics and planetary sciences panels into one body, and the U.S. Geological Survey closed its new scientific integrity body, alongside five others at the Department of Interior that included a climate adaptation panel. “This means that you, the public, will be more at-risk of being harmed because the scientific integrity and misconduct issues that were prevalent before will continue to persist,” wrote integrity panel member Jacob Carter. He called the committee’s cancellation, “an indicator that this administration has no intention to uphold scientific evidence in its decisions.”He's right; contrary to the executive order, these committees matter. Cutting away advisory panels hurts everyone and leaves the U.S. government uninformed when making critical decisions that affect millions of lives, alongside a public left in the dark about what advice agencies do receive. These advisors, a “fifth arm of the government,” have long served as a thorn in the side of polluters and lobbyists, putting them under siege for decades, and doubtless in the gunsights of the giddily for-sale Trump administration. A 2021 Ecology Law Quarterly review found past end runs around advisory committees were linked to lead pollution, fracking contamination of drinking water, and worse air quality.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Federal advisory committees operate under a 1972 law, which governs the roughly 1,000 expert committees advising federal agencies on evidence-based practices on issues like boating safety or railroad retirement benefits at a yearly cost of $400 million. The panels are a bargain, providing by law “fairly balanced” expert advice that includes disclosures of financial conflicts of interest, and providing information openly to the public. The best-known examples from the pandemic were those FDA and CDC panels that voted on the safety and rollout of COVID vaccines to much attention.History repeats when it comes to attacks on advisory panels. In 2019 Trump ordered a one-third cut in the number of them. The order took aim at science panels at NASA, the NSF and the Energy Department, in particular. The first Trump administration’s sheer incompetence kept many of those kinds of closures at bay. His then EPA chief resorted to stuffing a clean air panel with industry stooges instead, and an antiabortion advocates panel lacking any scientific credibility was whipped up to eliminate fetal tissue research at NIH.Now, however, the crush of executive orders and disregard for Congress seen in the first 100 days of the new regime make things look even more dire. The dangerous, unqualified HHS chief Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has forced out top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, who oversaw the vaccine panel that held steadily to public health principles during the pandemic, refusing to bend to Trump’s demand for an “October Surprise” vaccine to save himself in the 2020 election. All Department of Homeland Security advisory committees members were fired in January, halting a probe into a massive Chinese breach of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure.Perhaps the clearest sign of the scientific advice we can instead expect from the Trump administration comes from RFK, Jr., naming an unqualified antivaccine activist, one who in 2011 was disciplined for practicing medicine without a license, to head a phony study to make autism “preventable” by September. The cruelty of his dishonest sham, founded on disdain for the autistic community and aimed at parents of autistic children, defies decency. It seems squarely aimed at making kids sick by discouraging vaccination.In the first Trump administration, his appointees also skirted the law requiring keeping advisory meetings open to the public. Such secrecy will be indubitably ubiquitous amid the news administration’s “completely insane” meetings held on Signal, and tariff decisions surrounded by suspected insider trading. In our unhinged current moment, it’s hard to recall that Trump campaign bankroller Elon Musk quit a Trump presidential advisory committee in 2017 over the withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. So much for the scruples that drove him then. Now he (wink-wink) doesn’t really run the run-amok DOGE staffers stealing data, jobs and buildingsin secrecy across the nation’s capital. In acting as an advisor but not an appointee, he is a one-man circumvention of openness.One of the trials of the Trump era is that its malignancy comes packaged in a cloud of buffoonery: take your pick from Musk waving a chainsaw around on stage or an education secretary calling artificial intelligence “Ay-One” or any of Trump’s inane digressions that should have triggered the 25th Amendment in his first term.But his administration’s steps, large and small, from attacking universities to immigrants to expert advisors, aimed at destroying competence and honesty as guiding principles for the U.S., will in the end yield only tears, not laughter. Wrecking the federal advisory committee system is just one more tread on a path to American ruin.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American

April 22, 2025Misunderstood and Maligned Snakes Are Worthy Our Sympathy In a new book called Slither, Stephen S. Hall takes a deep dive into the biology and history of one of the most reviled animals.SUBSCRIBE TO Science QuicklyRachel Feltman: For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. People are funny about snakes. I remember being taught the rhyme, “Red touches black, you’re okay, Jack; red touches yellow, you’re a dead fellow,” in elementary school—never mind the fact that we did not have coral snakes in New Jersey. My guest today has spent a lot of time exploring our cultural aversion to—and fascination with—snakes. Stephen S. Hall is a science writer and the author of seven books. He’s also a teacher of science communication at New York University, Rockefeller University and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. His latest book, Slither: How Nature’s Most Maligned Creatures Illuminate Our World, is on sale now.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Thank you so much for coming in to chat. I’m really looking forward to it.Stephen S. Hall: My pleasure to be here. Thank you.Feltman: First question: Why snakes?Hall: There’s several answers to that question. One of them is that as a kid, like many kids, I caught snakes, brought them home, put them in terrariums in the garage until my mother screamed when they would get loose, and that sort of ended that experiment. I was always fascinated by them because they were so different from other animals—and also so beautiful. There was a real fascination and attraction there. But I wasn’t a herper; I didn’t go out and continue to collect snakes.What I did do is become a science writer, and probably in the 2000s and 2010s, when I was reading science journals like Science and Nature, I occasionally would run across these really interesting major research articles based on snakes, and I always sort of set them aside, thinking, “This is kind of interesting. I should gather a little pile on this.”The third piece of this explanation is that my agent suggested at one point, “Why don’t you do a book about an animal?” which I had never done before. And my first reaction was, “I’d only do a book about an animal that most people don’t like,” because I thought it’d be a really interesting challenge to try to change people’s minds. And as most people know snakes are not very popular. People do not like them—they’re afraid of them; they loathe them; there’re all these surveys that children detest snakes and adults detest snakes—and I thought it would be an interesting challenge to try to change people’s minds about a really interesting creature. Feltman: Very cool. Given your research for the book, how have our feelings about snakes evolved over time?Hall: One of the things that surprised me is: this deeply embedded loathing of snakes was not always the case. In fact, that was the later evolution from earlier cultures, and part of the fun of doing Slither was going back and seeing how ancient cultures perceive snakes, and they perceived them very differently.They were respected. They were venerated in some cultures. In, in early ancient Greek culture the snake was associated with healing. In Mesoamerican cultures the snake was associated with a kind of messenger that would go back and forth between humans and nature but also humans and the afterworld—the world of the nonliving, as it were. There was a great respect for these creatures. This was also true in ancient Egypt. And then [laughs] with the Garden of Eden story the snake got demonized and was blamed for human fallibility, human sin, and I think that changed a lot of perceptions.One of the goals that I was trying to accomplish here was to get people to rethink what snakes represent: Why did ancient people venerate them, and is there a way to reclaim that sense of respect for these otherwise disliked creatures?Feltman: Well, and what do you think it is about snakes that made them venerated, and what do you think it is about them that makes people feel so negatively towards them?Hall: In terms of the negative part they are so different from so many other creatures: They don’t have legs. They’re secretive. You can’t see them. They’re [laughs] extremely good at hiding. In fact, you know, there—it’s sort of a Darwinian badge of honor that they make themselves hard to see, with their camouflage skin, and coloration, and so on. So they represent a kind of extreme version of the other. And people also associate threat and danger with them, certainly with venomous snakes.One of the interesting things that came up in the research—it’s a really interesting theory called the snake-detection theory. This is advanced by a researcher at the University of California, Davis, named Lynne Isbell. Isbell argues that the necessity of spotting snakes in the wild as a self-preservation mechanism led to the creation of a much larger primate brain, which we humans have inherited as well. So she attributes human acuity in vision to spotting snakes in [an] evolutionary sense that was developed a long time ago.Feltman: Yeah, I’ve also seen that as an explanation for why cats are freaked out by cucumbers; I’ll have to fact-check that. But that’s not [laughs] anything I’ve—I’ve heard that theory brought up before in the context of cats running away from cucumbers [laughs], so.Hall: There’s some ingrained perception.Charles Darwin read a report by a German scientist—this is in the middle of the 19th century—that he had taken snakes to the monkey house in a zoo in Germany, and the monkeys went crazy just seeing that there was a snake in it when he revealed it. So Darwin puts a stuffed snake in a bag and goes to the London Zoo, and then he takes off the top, and all the monkeys go crazy, and he’d never seen a reaction like that. Then he went back with a live snake, and the same thing happened, and it was this sort of instantaneous reaction to the appearance of a snake, so there’s definitely an alarm system ...Feltman: Mm.Hall: We don’t need to say that it was fear, necessarily, although some people call it a “fear module,” but there’s an alarm system in spotting a snake that I think is connected to the alarm that many humans feel when they see a snake.Feltman: Sure, and speaking of Darwin’s kind of crude research, how has our scientific understanding of snakes changed over time?Hall: Scientists are belatedly using snakes as a nontraditional model organism.Feltman: Mm.Hall: You would think that there was not much you could learn from a snake, but they’ve actually discovered some remarkable qualities in snakes because they finally started paying attention to them with the advent of molecular biology. What used to be observed naturalistically—okay, a snake eats a large prey and digests it—and they would take x-rays of it, like, in the 1970s; that was how metabolism was explained. After genomics emerged and they did the genome of the snake after the Human Genome Project, they discovered that snakes, pythons, as a model organism activate a huge suite of genes from the moment that they have a meal. And they were particularly interesting organisms to study because—I facetiously kinda say they invented intermittent fasting [laughs]—but, but they could go for a year at a time without eating a single meal. And then they eat these enormous meals. So the equivalence was, like, a 150-pound human, for example, roughly, eating a 220-pound hamburger ...Feltman: Mm [laughs].Hall: “In one gulp.” That’s kind of what the meal of a python was like. How does an animal handle the digestion and processing of that? It turns out they activate all these genes that regenerate tissues in the body—a bigger heart, a bigger intestine—just to handle the [laughs] massive processing of this meal. And then they carve away all the regenerated tissue that they’ve created and go back to normal. So they have this ability to regenerate tissue, which, of course, is something we can’t do, except in a couple of isolated cases, and it became a really interesting thing to study.Another thing that’s really interesting is convergent evolution: this idea that animals can evolve the same traits, although they’re completely unrelated. So there was a study that came out a couple years ago on spitting cobras. The researchers established that three different lineages of cobras that were completely independent of each other each evolved the anatomical mechanism to spit venom—a physiological change. They evolved the behavior to aim the spit at the eyes of whatever it was that was threatening them.Feltman: Wow.Hall: And they independently evolved a change in their venom that produced excruciating pain in eyes. So independently all three of those different qualities were evolved in three different species of snakes that were completely unrelated to each other, in a sense. You couldn’t have found that out until you had genomics and very sophisticated molecular analysis of venom and all that stuff.Feltman: Yeah. What were some of the most surprising things that you learned in this project as someone who already really had a fondness for snakes?Hall: The thing that really impressed me is how adaptive snakes are, how rapidly they adjust to their environment; it’s one of their signal traits. They’re very diverse—it’s amazing that they can live on every continent except Antarctica, which means temperate, cold weather, tropical weather, jungle, seawater. If there’s a threat in the environment, they have these remarkably ingenious evolutionary adaptations to it. There’s a story of these sea snakes in, in the Pacific off New Caledonia that, in response to the pollution in the waters there, have developed melanistic characteristics—a darker coloration in their skin—because that sequesters all these toxic chemicals that are in the water and prevents it from harming the animal, and then they slough off their skin and they get rid of the chemicals. And it’s only in those snakes that are inhabiting that particular niche.This idea of being able to adapt to environmental challenge really struck me, not just because of the cleverness of the evolution or the selective process, but also, it’s a warning to us in terms of climate change and changes in the global meteorological systems. Snakes have a way of adapting to this that we don’t have, and maybe we can learn something from them. It’s really interesting that in the Mesoamerican cultures in particular, snakes were traditionally associated with meteorological events ...Feltman: Mm.Hall: So rain, lightning, thunderstorms, droughts, floods, and all of that being attached to agricultural fertility. And these are all issues that are front and center now because of climate change, and I think the ancients realized that snakes were symbols of coming to terms with both the unpredictability of nature and perhaps suggesting ways to adapt to it.I spoke to a very well-known Australian herpetologist named Rick Shine. He did fieldwork in [the mountains of] Tasmania, which has horrible weather, and there are snakes there, and, you know, he said there’s only 20 or 30 really nice sunny days there. And humans go there, and they think, “This is the most god-awful environment. How could anything live here?” And the snakes live under the rocks for all but those 20 or 30 days, and then they come out, and they think they’re living in the villa by the sea [laughs], and it’s just, it’s a sunny day for them; they don’t have the sense that it’s a bad environment because they adjust to it. And he had this wonderful observation—he just wondered what it felt like for a snake to emerge into the sunlight, warm up, have all its organ systems click on, its consciousness click on. He said, “That must be an amazing feeling.” And I thought that was a wonderful way of kind of capturing the uniqueness of these creatures.Feltman: Yeah, well, and speaking of that adaptation, what dangers are snakes facing these days?Hall: I would say the biggest danger’s habitat destruction. And there are a couple of anecdotes in the book—so I talk about when I caught snakes as a kid, and this was in a sort of exurban area of Michigan, outside Detroit. I went back to that area 50 years later to see how the habitat had changed, and all the places where you would catch turtles or you catch snakes or you would see them, it’s all changed: It’s been developed residentially. Population spread has confined the habitat.Thomas Cole, who’s a pretty famous Hudson River School painter, had made the point that a habitat destruction was something that needed to be addressed or, as he put it, we would lose Eden and wouldn’t be able to recover it again.Feltman: Why do you think people should care about snakes?Hall: I think it’s really important, when we talk about conservation, preservation of species, prevention of extinction, that we don’t only think about cute animals that everybody likes. It’s really important to globally embrace all creatures—including, in this case, that animal that is so different and so repulsive and historically so loathed by so many people—because if we pick and choose, we’re really not saving anything in terms of habitat or anything else.And it’s an acknowledgement that ecologies are complicated, that there are these very fragile webs, and it’s not just birds or mammals or snakes, but it’s the combination and interaction of these creatures that creates a vibrant and sustainable ecology. It’s really important to include everyone in our conservation arc, if you will.Feltman: Absolutely. Steve, thank you so much for coming on to talk to us, and I’m sure our listeners are really gonna love your book.Hall: Thank you very much for having me.Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. Don’t forget to check out Slither wherever you buy books. We’ll be back on Friday to learn how you can explore your urban or suburban neighborhood with all of the enthusiasm of a seasoned naturalist out in the wild.Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!

April 22, 20254 min readWhat We Know about Artificial Food Dyes and Health as RFK, Jr., Declares a U.S. BanThis week the secretary of health and human services announced plans to remove eight more food dyes from the U.S.’s food systemBy Lauren J. Young edited by Dean Visser Jena Ardell/Getty ImagesOn Tuesday Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., announced plans to order the U.S. food industry to eliminate eight petroleum-based food dyes within the next two years, based on some evidence that links them to health risks.The move by Kennedy, the Trump administration’s secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, follows his earlier promises to ban various chemical food additives—including artificial colorings that are commonly used to brighten rainbow-colored cereals, pastries, chips, candies and other processed foods. Individual states, such as California and West Virginia, have also independently pushed legislation to ban certain food dyes and preservatives this year. At today’s press event, Kennedy discussed the directive and various claims about the nutritional value of foods alongside Food and Drug Administration director Marty Makary, National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya and other public officials. Makary said they will establish a timeline for the food industry transition to “natural alternatives.”“There’s no reason not to remove [such artificial food dyes] if they're there just for visual appeal. If there’s no health-promoting purpose, and there’s actually even the slightest risk of detriments to health, then why not remove them?” says Kathleen Melanson, a nutritional scientist at the University of Rhode Island. She adds, however, that these chemical dyes are likely only part of the problem. “There’s so much more to food than single factors,” Melanson says.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.What It MeansThe FDA currently certifies nine color additives for use in foods. By this past January the outgoing Biden administration had already started the process to ban one of them, Red No. 3. Kennedy will target the other eight artificial food dyes, such as Yellow No. 5, Blue No. 1 and Red No. 40.The decision to ban Red No. 3 was based on a study in which male rats developed thyroid tumors after being exposed to high levels of the substance. Even though other studies in humans and animals failed to show similar results, the dye was banned under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act’s Delaney Clause, explains Tracy Crane, an associate professor of medical oncology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, part of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and the University of Miami Health System.“In the Delaney Clause, [proponents of the ban] were able to state that anything that caused cancer in humans or animals could be eliminated from the diet, and that’s what happened with Red No. 3,” says Crane, who had wondered if other food dyes would experience the same fate. “There are definitely studies for some of these [dyes] that are on the list that have shown cancer-causing properties in mice.”What the Evidence SaysOlder animal studies have associated some blue, yellow and red dyes with risks of tumor development and neurotoxicity. Some research suggests the neurotoxicity may contribute to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Melanson calls the evidence “mixed,” however. Direct exposure has only been tested in animals. Human data have been mostly limited to population or epidemiological studies—in which participants have been asked to recall and self-report the foods they’ve eaten. This has led some scientists to say there is not enough information to make conclusions about food dyes’ potential health threats.An FDA research review on food dyes’ potential effects on children’s behavior also concluded that most children didn’t experience adverse effects, though some individuals may be sensitive to some dyes. The FDA states that color additives are safe to consume when they are used according to the agency’s regulations. And the International Association of Color Manufacturers, a group representing the global color industry, has previously said that the small levels of artificial food dyes that humans typically eat are generally safe. (At press time, the association has not responded to a request for comment from Scientific American.)“The danger is always in the dose,” Melanson says.A Wall Street Journal analysis evaluated U.S. Department of Agriculture data for more than 450,000 food products and found that 10 percent contained at least one artificial dye—and that more than 40 percent had multiple dyes. “When food additives are approved, they’re generally tested one at a time,” Melanson says. “We don’t know what happens with interactions.”Consuming a food with multiple dyes makes it difficult to know the total dose that has been ingested, Melanson says. The accumulative effects of a whole diet comprised of many different foods with artificial dyes, consumed over a lifetime, is even harder to assess. A disease like cancer takes a long time develop, Crane says, noting, “It’s very hard for us to really know what the direct impact of these food diets is.” She adds that not all the dyes are made the same and each may be processed in the body differently.Melanson and Crane agree that food dyes are just one ingredient that may contribute to health risks.“It’s not just about one type of ingredients; it’s about every ingredient that’s in there,” Melanson says. “If it's all tunnel vision on one factor without considering these other potential risk factors—the excess of sodium and sugar and processing, lack of fiber, lack of fortifying nutrients—then we might be missing some aspects.”More details are pending, but it’s expected that food manufacturers may have to alter their production practices or consider alternative coloring additives. Natural, food-based sources such as turmeric, paprika, pumpkin or carrot have been used as well. But it’s unclear what the transition will cost manufacturers and federal agencies, Melanson says. Currently, manufacturers have until 2027 to remove Red No. 3 from food products and until 2028 to remove it from medicines. At today’s press briefing, however, RFK, Jr., and other health officials asserted that this dye and the others need to be removed sooner, though no official timeline was presented.“I know these procedures take time, and food manufacturers have to reformulate,” Melanson says. “But in the meantime, Americans can consider backing off ultraprocessed foods—the ones that are obviously at the high end of the spectrum of processing and formulation.”

April 22, 20255 min readPrime Number Mystery Is Key to Magic: The Gathering Card Game StrategyThe popular fantasy card game Magic: The Gathering has a new card related to prime numbers. Now fans are trying to use it to tackle one of the biggest problems in mathematicsBy Manon Bischoff edited by Jeanna BrynerParticipants play a Magic: The Gathering card game during a weekly tournament at The Uncommons, a hobby shop in New York City. Mark Abramson/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesA game of Magic: The Gathering begins well before players lay down their first card. As a collectible card game, Magic requires competitive players to select the optimal deck of cards based on how they think it will function against hypothetical opponents with many different strategies—then the game itself offers proof or disproof of the player’s predictive powers. Because about 30,000 different cards are available today—though they’re likely not all owned by a single individual—there are many degrees of variation.This abundance of possibilities has sparked plenty of questions and ideas. Some players have wondered how complicated the game really is. For example, does it involve enough complexity to perform calculations, as you would with a computer? To this end, software engineer Alex Churchill and two other Magic players created a game situation in which the cards act as a universal computer—as a Turing machine. They posted their work to the preprint server arXiv.org in 2019.Their computer model sealed the deal: Magic is the most complex type of game, they concluded. Theoretically, any kind of calculation that a computer can perform, a particular Magic game can do the same. Ever since I learned this, the game has held a certain fascination for me.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.But in practice, of course, using a Magic deck for its calculating prowess is not particularly helpful. Coding such a Turing machine alone is extremely time-consuming. And who has the time to go one step further and go through the billions of different card combinations necessary to solve a math problem with Magic cards? The quicker option would be to type the problem into a computer through some elegant Python code (or another programming language).As it turns out, people are quite willing to give their time to such “Magical” endeavors. For example, in 2024 Churchill and mathematician Howe Choong Yin developed a Magic programming language that used Magic moves to code elementary calculations such as addition, multiplication or division. Say you wanted to calculate 3 + 5. All you would need are a few cards (such as Vaevictis Asmadi, the Dire), Churchill and Howe’s instructions, and a little patience. Forget supercomputers, quantum computing and all that fancy stuff: the future of computing lies in Magic cards, right?Probably not—even solving a division problem with Magic cards is cumbersome, and tackling more complex problems in this way proves to be nearly impossible, especially when it comes to dealing with open questions in mathematics. That hasn’t stopped others from trying, however.Gameplay with Twin PrimesIn the fall of 2024 Reddit user its-summer-somewhere posted a combination of 14 moves that use about two dozen Magic cards and could potentially deal infinite damage. The outcome of the game depends on the answer to a mathematical puzzle that is almost 180 years old: Are there an infinite number of prime number twins? Prime numbers, such as 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and so on, are divisible only by 1 and themselves. Twin primes are pairs of prime numbers that differ by only two, such as 3 and 5, 5 and 7, 11 and 13, and 17 and 19.Mathematicians have previously proven that there are an infinite number of primes. But their number decreases with increasing size: the further you progress in the number line, the less often prime numbers appear. This is even more true for prime number twins. The question that mathematicians have been asking themselves for centuries is: Are there also an infinite number of twin primes? Or will this parade end at some point?In 1849 French mathematician Alphonse de Polignac put forward the now famous twin prime conjecture: there are an infinite number of prime number twins. But despite numerous attempts, the assumption has so far neither been proven nor disproven. The largest known twin prime pair is 2,996,863,034,895 x 21,290,000 + 1 and 2,996,863,034,895 x 21,290,000 – 1. Is it perhaps the last?A Mathematical Magic CardInterest in prime numbers among Magic players increased with the introduction of the new card set Duskmourn: House of Horror on September 27, 2024. The deck contains, among other things, the card Zimone, All-Questioning. Its description reads: “At the beginning of your end step, if a land entered the battlefield under your control this turn and you control a prime number of lands, create Primo, the Indivisible, a legendary 0/0 green and blue Fractal creature token, then put that many +1/+1 counters on it. (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, and 31 are prime numbers.)”That sounds cryptic, at least for Magic-inexperienced people like me. But the action of the card depends on the number of currency-generating cards called “lands” that a player controls—specifically on whether that number is prime.After its-summer-somewhere posted their complicated, and not particularly realistic, game situation, the outcome of which depends on whether there are an infinite number of prime twins, another Redditor promptly commented, “Somehow I knew that introducing the concept of prime numbers into the game would be a bad idea. Good to know I’m not wrong.” (“To be fair,” responded a third user, “prime numbers have always been in the game, as have non-prime numbers. [This set] just introduced the concept of that mattering.”)The idea, its-summer-somewhere wrote, is to create situations in which certain cards called “creatures” can be copied as often as desired using a particular card combination. Another card ensures that the copied creatures function as lands. If the number of lands controlled is not prime, a certain combination of cards creates two more lands. As soon as the number of lands corresponds to a prime number p, however, Zimone comes into play: It then creates two new Primo creatures, which in turn automatically also become lands. This means that you now have p + 2 lands. If p + 2 is also a prime, Zimone’s ability gets triggered again, leaving four Primo creatures on the battlefield. At that point you can use three of them to cause damage to the enemy. Thus, the opponent can only be harmed if Zimone is triggered twice in a row—in other words, only if the number of lands corresponds to a prime number twin. You can then repeat certain steps to increase your number of lands to the number of the next largest twin prime. The maximum damage that can be inflicted depends on the number of all existing twin primes: “Our maximum damage is infinite, if and only if the twin primes conjecture is true,” its-summer-somewhere wrote.Does this now bring humanity closer to a solution to the prime twin conjecture? Probably not. Sure, you could sit two people down and have them play Magic for ages. But ultimately the gameplay is based on knowing whether numbers are prime twins instead of explicitly proving the conjecture.Regardless, the imagined game is always entertaining and bizarre—and apparently it tempts nonmathematicians to deal with problems related to number theory. It may also have the opposite effect: As a math fan, I’ve been looking for a new hobby for a long time. Maybe I should give Magic a try.This article originally appeared in Spektrum der Wissenschaft and was reproduced with permission.

April 22, 20255 min readWhat Happens to the Plastic in Your Recycling Bin?Much of the U.S. uses single-stream recycling, where plastic, glass and paper go into one bin. Here’s what happens to that material and ways engineering is trying to improve the processBy Alex Jordan & The Conversation US A truck dumps its contents of recyclable items on the tipping floor at the Town of Brookhaven Material Recycling Facility in Yaphank, N.Y. John Paraskevas/Newsday RM via Getty ImagesThe following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.Every week, millions of Americans toss their recyclables into a single bin, trusting that their plastic bottles, aluminum cans and cardboard boxes will be given a new life.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.But what really happens after the truck picks them up?Single-stream recycling makes participating in recycling easy, but behind the scenes, complex sorting systems and contamination mean a large percentage of that material never gets a second life. Reports in recent years have found 15% to 25% of all the materials picked up from recycle bins ends up in landfills instead.Plastics are among the biggest challenges. Only about 9% of the plastic generated in the U.S. actually gets recycled, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Some plastic is incinerated to produce energy, but most of the rest ends up in landfills instead.So, what makes plastic recycling so difficult? As an engineer whose work focuses on reprocessing plastics, I have been exploring potential solutions.How does single-stream recycling work?In cities that use single-stream recycling, consumers put all of their recyclable materials − paper, cardboard, plastic, glass and metal − into a single bin. Once collected, the mixed recyclables are taken to a materials recovery facility, where they are sorted.First, the mixed recyclables are shredded and crushed into smaller fragments, enabling more effective separation. The mixed fragments pass over rotating screens that remove cardboard and paper, allowing heavier materials, including plastics, metals and glass, to continue along the sorting line.Magnets are used to pick out ferrous metals, such as steel. A magnetic field that produces an electrical current with eddies sends nonferrous metals, such as aluminum, into a separate stream, leaving behind plastics and glass.The glass fragments are removed from the remaining mix using gravity or vibrating screens.That leaves plastics as the primary remaining material.While single-stream recycling is convenient, it has downsides. Contamination, such as food residue, plastic bags and items that can’t be recycled, can degrade the quality of the remaining material, making it more difficult to reuse. That lowers its value.Having to remove that contamination raises processing costs and can force recovery centers to reject entire batches.Which plastics typically can’t be recycled?Each recycling program has rules for which items it will and won’t take. You can check which items can and cannot be recycled for your specific program on your municipal page. Often, that means checking the recycling code stamped on the plastic next to the recycling icon.These are the toughest plastics to recycle and most likely to be excluded in your local recycling program:Symbol 3 – Polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, found in pipes, shower curtains and some food packaging. It may contain harmful additives such as phthalates and heavy metals. PVC also degrades easily, and melting can release toxic fumes during recycling, contaminating other materials and making it unsafe to process in standard recycling facilities.Symbol 4 – Low-density polyethylene, or LDPE, is often used in plastic bags and shrink-wrap. Because it’s flexible and lightweight, it’s prone to getting tangled in sorting machinery at recycling plants.Symbol 6 – Polystyrene, often used in foam cups, takeout containers and packing peanuts. Because it’s lightweight and brittle, it’s difficult to collect and process and easily contaminates recycling streams.Which plastics to includeThat leaves three plastics that can be recycled in many facilities:Symbol 1 – Polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, widely used in soda bottles.Symbol 2 – High-density polyethylene, or HDPE, commonly used in milk jugs and laundry detergent bottles.Symbol 5 – Polypropylene, PP, used in products such as pill bottles, yogurt cups and plastic utensils.However, these aren’t accepted in some facilities for reasons I’ll explain.Taking apart plastics, bead by beadSome plastics can be chemically recycled or ground up for reprocessing, but not all plastics play well together.Simple separation methods, such as placing ground-up plastics in water, can easily remove your soda bottle plastic (PET) from the mixture. The ground-up PET sinks in water due to the plastic’s density. However, HDPE, used in milk jugs, and PP, found in yogurt cups, both float, and they can’t be recycled together. So, more advanced and expensive technology, such as infrared spectroscopy, is often required to separate those two materials.Once separated, the plastic from your soda bottle can be chemically recycled through a process called solvolysis.It works like this: Plastic materials are formed from polymers. A polymer is a molecule with many repeating units, called monomers. Picture a pearl necklace. The individual pearls are the repeating monomer units. The string that runs through the pearls is the chemical bond that joins the monomer units together. The entire necklace can then be thought of as a single molecule.The Conversation (CC BY-ND); Source: Environmental Protection AgencyDuring solvolysis, chemists break down that necklace by cutting the string holding the pearls together until they are individual pearls. Then, they string those pearls together again to create new necklaces.Other chemical recycling methods, such as pyrolysis and gasification, have drawn environmental and health concerns because the plastic is heated, which can release toxic fumes. But chemical recycling also holds the potential to reduce both plastic waste and the need for new plastics, while generating energy.The problem of yogurt cups and milk jugsThe other two common types of recycled plastics − items such as yogurt cups (PP) and milk jugs (HDPE) − are like oil and water: Each can be recycled through reprocessing, but they don’t mix.If polyethylene and polypropylene aren’t completely separated during recycling, the resulting mix can be brittle and generally unusable for creating new products.Chemists are working on solutions that could increase the quality of recycled plastics through mechanical reprocessing, typically done at separate facilities.One promising mechanical method for recycling mixed plastics is to incorporate a chemical called a compatibilizer. Compatibilizers contain the chemical structure of multiple different polymers in the same molecule. It’s like how lecithin, commonly found in egg yolks, can help mix oil and water to make mayonnaise − part of the lecithin molecule is in the oil phase and part is in the water phase.In the case of yogurt cups and milk jugs, recently developed block copolymers are able to produce recycled plastic materials with the flexibility of polyethylene and the strength of polypropylene.Improving recyclingResearch like this can make recycled materials more versatile and valuable and move products closer to a goal of a circular economy without waste.However, improving recycling also requires better recycling habits.You can help the recycling process by taking a few minutes to wash off food waste, avoiding putting plastic bags in your recycling bin and, importantly, paying attention to what can and cannot be recycled in your area.This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

April 22, 20255 min readChildhood Asthma Will Worsen with Pollution Rollbacks and CDC CutsPresident Trump has ordered agencies to act “urgently” to curb asthma—a goal at odds with moves to roll back air pollution limits and with RFK, Jr., cutting CDC expertsBy Ariel Wittenberg & E&E News SBDIGIT/Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | When EPA announced its intent to roll back more than two dozen regulations last month, Administrator Lee Zeldin said it was necessary because pollution limits were “suffocating” the nation’s economy.But 12 of the 31 rules on the chopping block protect Americans' ability to breathe by curtailing air pollutants like fine particulate matter and ozone. According to one review of EPA’s analyses, those rules would collectively prevent more than 100 million asthma attacks through 2050.The regulatory rollback isn't the Trump administration's only move that will affect American lungs. Just this month, the Department of Health and Human Services completely eliminated the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s asthma office, which provides funding and advice to state and local health officials on how to prevent the the inflammatory lung condition.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“I don’t say this lightly, but these are programs that were keeping people alive,” said Laura Kate Bender of the American Lung Association. “And now we have this double whammy where on the one hand, we are seeing the threat of a slew of air pollution rollbacks and lax enforcement at EPA, and on the other hand, they are cutting programs that were helping people manage their lung disease.”The rollbacks and cuts contradict the Trump administration’s stated goals of reducing childhood chronic diseases, including asthma. Asthma was mentioned twice in President Donald Trump’s February executive order that directed federal agencies to act “urgently” to end chronic childhood diseases through “fresh thinking” on “environmental impacts” to health, among other things.Asked how EPA reconciles its directive to tackle asthma with rolling back regulations that prevent the disease, EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said only that “the Trump Administration is taking steps in the right direction to ensure EPA adheres to the agency’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment and powering the great American comeback.”The costs of a regulatory rollbackElizabeth Hauptman remembers the joy she felt two years ago when EPA finalized a carbon rule meant to reduce pollution from fossil fuels.Now a field consultant for Moms Clean Air Force, Hauptman started paying attention to air pollution regulations when her then-toddler son, Oscar, started having difficulty breathing. In the years since he was diagnosed with asthma, Oscar, now 15, has been to the intensive care unit twice and had to sit out sports practices more times than Hauptman can count on poor air quality days.She had been hoping the carbon rule would save more kids like Oscar from struggling to breathe. But now the rule is one of 12 air pollution limits EPA announced it would reconsider in March on its “biggest deregulation action in U.S. History.”Hauptman worries EPA’s actions will only make asthma attacks more common — for her son and others.“My son is growing up in a world where he has to check the air quality index like some kids check their favorite sports scores, and that should not be normal,” she said. “This is not just about policy — it’s about playgrounds and bedtime stories without wheezing.”In 2035 alone, EPA estimated, the rule would prevent 1,200 premature deaths, 870 hospital and emergency room visits, 1,900 new asthma diagnoses and 360,000 asthma attacks severe enough to require an inhaler.Those calculations are part of the cost-benefit analysis EPA is required by law to conduct whenever it issues new regulations. They often measure the benefits of reducing air pollution in terms of avoided asthma symptoms, emergency room visits and hospitalizations.“My son is growing up in a world where he has to check the air quality index like some kids check their favorite sports scores, and that should not be normal. This is not just about policy — it’s about playgrounds and bedtime stories without wheezing.” —Elizabeth Hauptman, field consultant for Moms Clean Air ForceFor example, EPA estimated that another regulation targeted in Zeldin's rollback — the "good neighbor" rule — would prevent 179,000 asthma attacks and 5,000 new diagnoses of the disease in 2026. The rule limits smokestack emissions from power plants that create ozone pollution and smog in downwind, neighboring states.All told, those health benefits, along with avoided hospitalizations and premature deaths from the pollution, would save $13 billion in 2026, the agency calculated.“Inhalers are expensive, asthma attacks are expensive, keeping kids home from school and parents out of work to care for them is expensive,” Bender explained.Making America healthy?Trump's February executive order created the Make America Healthy Commission, tasked with drafting a strategy to improve kids’ health that must “address appropriately restructuring the Federal Government’s response to the childhood chronic disease crisis, including ending Federal practices that exacerbate the health crisis.”Zeldin sits on the commission with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is restructuring the Health and Human Services Department as part of an agenda he calls "Make American Healthy Again."Kennedy mentioned asthma as a chronic disease he wants to address during his confirmation hearings. But earlier this month, he put every staff member in the CDC’s Asthma Control Program on administrative leave, and told them their jobs will be eliminated in June.Created in 1999, the CDC program funds work in 29 state and local health departments to help reduce asthma attacks. Some grants provide training for visiting nurses to help patients reduce exposure to things like secondhand smoke and mold at home. Others fund training for school nurses and other officials on how to administer inhalers and other medications.Utah, for example, has used grants from the asthma program to create “recess guidance” that recommends when air quality is too poor for kids to play outside. The state has also started sending proactive email alerts to school personnel based on the guidance.The program’s experts would also deploy to areas hit by disasters, like wildfires and hurricanes, to help communities respond to asthma threats, and would even field calls directly from patients who had recently been diagnosed with asthma and needed advice on how to manage their symptoms.That expertise is no longer available. The program’s entire staff was sent Reduction in Force notices earlier this month as part of a broader HHS reorganization that has resulted in 18 percent of the agency’s workforce being cut overall.“If you are newly diagnosed with asthma because of air pollution issues now, what resources do you have after these cuts?” asked Jenna Riemenschneider, vice president of advocacy and policy at the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.HHS did not respond to questions about why the office has been eliminated or whether Kennedy agrees with EPA’s actions to roll back pollution rules that prevent asthma.In a statement, an agency spokesperson only said that “critical programs within the CDC will continue,” and Kennedy “is committed towards understanding and drastically lowering chronic disease rates and ending the childhood chronic disease epidemic.”Three staff members from the CDC program, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they were blindsided by the move to eliminate HHS’ only asthma experts, in part because they had read the February executive order.“When we saw the first announcement that they were reorganizing HHS, we thought maybe they would move us to the new Administration for a Healthy America,” said one employee, referring to a new division created in the HHS restructuring. “But none of us saw coming that we would be cut along with our entire division.”Another employee said she had actually been “excited” by the February executive order because she thought it would elevate the program’s work to help more asthma patients.“By eliminating the asthma and air quality branch, the MAHA movement loses so much scientific and medical experience that would have helped actually make America healthier,” she said.Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

April 22, 20252 min readFight, Flee or Freeze? This Tiny Caterpillar Does a Secret Fourth ThingBaby warty birch caterpillars vibrate when threatened—before swinging away like Spider-ManBy Rohini Subrahmanyam edited by Sarah Lewin Frasier Thomas FuchsWhen facing an intruder, animals generally tend to fight, flee or simply freeze. But certain baby caterpillars do something else entirely: they vibrate.Newly hatched warty birch caterpillars, each about the size of a single pepper grain, live and feed alone on the very tips of leaves. In a recent study in the Journal of Experimental Biology, scientists found that the caterpillars are fiercely protective of their little abode. If another caterpillar wanders into their territory, these tiny critters start furiously drumming their heads, shaking their bodies and scraping their butts against the leaf—a series of complex vibratory behaviors to signal that their leaf tip is off-limits.This research “takes me into how complex the sensory world of even a tiny, tiny organism is that humans are just not aware of,” says Jayne E. Yack, a neuroethologist at Carleton University and senior author of the new study.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The scientists used close-up videos and a laser-doppler vibrometer—an instrument that can pick up a leaf’s vibrations without touching it—to tap into the caterpillars’ shaky world. “For such small caterpillars, [their vibrations] are like lion roars,” Yack says. “You have to turn down the volume and take the headphones off your ears because they’re so loud.” The bouncy leaf tip may also boost the sound, she adds.The caterpillars most likely guard their leaf tip because it offers a good escape route. If an undeterred intruder continues to approach, the caterpillar drops a silk thread and flees like Spider-Man. But its warning wiggle often does the trick.These vehement vibrations could also be a bluff; some spiders make similar moves. “It’s a distinct possibility that they’re mimicking a spider to deter somebody else from taking over their precious leaf tip,” Yack says.Like singing birds, “these caterpillars are also declaring ownership of their territories and competing with rivals—in this case by sending vibrations through the leaf surface rather than the air,” says Andrew Mason, who studies animal communication at the University of Toronto Scarborough and was not involved in the study. “This paper gives us a window onto this otherwise undetectable world.”

OpinionApril 22, 20255 min readWhy Narcissists Emerge as Leaders Even in ChildhoodMany children choose to follow peers with more narcissistic tendencies—and self-esteem may be part of the complex power dynamics involvedBy Eddie Brummelman Bo Feng/Getty ImagesNarcissistic leaders both fascinate and repel us. They can be charming, act assertively and articulate visions that may inspire confidence, especially in times of uncertainty. This can attract many followers. In 1931 Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, echoed this belief: “[Narcissists] impress others as being ‘personalities’; they are especially suited to act as a support for others, to take on the role of leaders and to give a fresh stimulus to cultural development or to damage the established state of affairs.”But narcissists famously have a dark side as well that includes unethical, autocratic and aggressive behavior. They often stifle collaboration and dismiss expert advice. Given those trade-offs, why do narcissists often end up in positions of leadership, and who is drawn to them? My colleague Barbara Nevicka, an organizational psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, and I set up the Childhood Leadership Study to investigate this question in childhood, when narcissistic leadership first emerges. We conducted fine-grained assessments of leadership behavior in 332 children aged seven to 14—and found patterns both in the preference for these leaders and in the relationships that leaders and followers form.Narcissism is a personality trait characterized by feelings of grandiosity, a sense of entitlement, and a craving for respect and admiration. It’s part of what psychologists call the “dark triad” of personality traits—along with psychopathy and Machiavellianism, or cold, strategic manipulation for personal gain. In adulthood, narcissism may develop into a narcissistic personality disorder. About 6 percent of people in the U.S. meet the criteria for this disorder at some point in their lives, though they may not receive a formal diagnosis. Our research focuses on children with above-average narcissism levels because narcissistic personality disorder is usually not formally diagnosed before adulthood.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The personality trait of narcissism develops in childhood and can be measured from middle childhood, around age seven. Although some degree of narcissism is typical in children this age, markedly higher levels compared with peers may signal a narcissistic personality. Middle childhood is also when leadership tendencies take shape and become increasingly evident. From age nine, children spend about 75 percent of their free time at school in groups of three or more peers, allowing them to form leader-follower relationships. Leadership on the playground, then, provides a blueprint for leadership in politics and beyond.Our study shows that narcissistic children often emerge as leaders in their classrooms. When we asked children to nominate classmates who they perceived to be leaders, kids in 96 percent of the classrooms tended to pick children with more narcissistic tendencies. It seems that narcissistic children embody the qualities their peers associate with leadership.But are narcissistic children better leaders? We assigned children to three-person groups and randomly designated one child as the leader to find out. The groups did a collaborative task, with the leader responsible for the decision-making process. Unsurprisingly, more narcissistic children perceived themselves as better leaders. Yet compared with their less narcissistic peers, they did not lead their group to perform better, exhibit stronger leadership (such as by delegating tasks) or receive higher ratings from their group members.This finding ties in with research among adults. A meta-analysis by Emily Grijalva, an organizational psychologist at the University at Buffalo, shows that narcissistic adults tend to emerge as leaders but don’t excel in those roles.We suspected that narcissistic traits in leaders are more attractive to some people than others. So we zoomed in on children with low self-esteem—those who feel unsatisfied with themselves and are often shy and withdrawn. We found that when followers with low self-esteem had a narcissistic leader, they perceived the leader as more effective and were more likely to endorse them for future leadership roles than did their peers with higher self-esteem. What’s more, they felt more included in the group, perceived greater group cohesion, felt better about themselves and were more inclusive toward others when they had a narcissistic leader.Why might children (or for that matter, adults) with low self-esteem be drawn to narcissistic leaders? Narcissistic leaders may offer them a sense of worth, security and community—the very feelings people with low self-esteem tend to lack. Michael Hogg, a social psychologist at Claremont Graduate University, has suggested that when people feel uncertain about themselves or the world, they may identify with groups led by a narcissist, who makes grandiose claims, lacks empathy and shares fantasies of unlimited success.In our study, narcissistic children also felt more comfortable leading peers with low self-esteem. They bullied them less and were more inclusive toward them. We believe this is because followers with low self-esteem don’t threaten the narcissistic leader’s position. Rather, they follow the leader—allowing the child in charge to shine and feel secure in their superiority.This tendency reveals a striking symbiosis—that is, a close association of two organisms that benefits both—between narcissistic leaders and followers with low self-esteem. Yet this mutual advantage might be short-lived. Over time, this dynamic may develop into a toxic cycle of dependency. Followers may reinforce narcissistic leaders’ growing dominance, while leaders may reinforce the followers’ growing submissiveness.In a 2018 study by Nevicka and colleagues of leader-follower dyads among adults working in different organizations and across different industries, followers with low self-esteem perceived narcissistic leaders as abusive, which led them to underperform and feel burned out. Thus, even though being led by a narcissistic leader might feel reassuring initially, it can ultimately make those with low self-esteem more vulnerable to harm.Unfortunately, it’s hard to avoid narcissistic leaders. In a society that values individualism, they quickly rise through the ranks. At first glance, their traits are often mistaken for healthy self-esteem, drawing people in before revealing their true nature. It’s also hard to change narcissistic leaders. They may believe that their traits serve them well, even when these very traits limit their potential as leaders.But society can cultivate leadership skills in children, the leaders of tomorrow. We hope that our research inspires educators and other professionals to take leadership development seriously. Kids can learn to lead democratically, feel responsible for the common good, and organize and inspire others toward making meaningful societal change. By helping children become more effective leaders, we can ensure that our world benefits from a new generation of change-makers.Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about for Mind Matters? Please send suggestions to Scientific American’s Mind Matters editor Daisy Yuhas dyuhas@sciam.com.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

April 21, 20256 min readQuantum Randomness Could Create a Spoof-Proof InternetQuantinuum’s 56-bit trapped-ion computer has succeeded in demonstrating randomness in quantum circuits to establish secure, private connectionsBy Gayoung Lee & Lee Billings Quantinuum's vacuum chamber. QuantinuumThe allure of quantum computers is, at its heart, quite simple: by leveraging counterintuitive quantum effects, they could perform computational feats utterly impossible for any classical computer. But reality is more complex: to date, most claims of quantum “advantage”—an achievement by a quantum computer that a regular machine can’t match—have struggled to show they truly exceed classical capabilities. And many of these claims involve contrived tasks of minimal practical use, fueling criticisms that quantum computing is at best overhyped and at worst on a road to nowhere.Now, however, a team of researchers from JPMorganChase, quantum computing firm Quantinuum, Argonne National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of Texas at Austin seems to have shown a genuine advantage that’s relevant to real-life issues of online security. The group’s results, published recently in Nature, build upon a previous certification protocol—a way to check that random numbers were generated fairly—developed by U.T. Austin computer scientist Scott Aaronson and his former postdoctoral researcher Shih-Han Hung.Using a Quantinuum-developed quantum computer in tandem with classical, or traditional, supercomputers at Argonne and Oak Ridge, the team demonstrated a technique that achieves what is called certified randomness. This method generates random numbers from a quantum computer that are then verified using classical supercomputers, allowing the now-certified random numbers to be safely used as passkeys for encrypted communications. The technique, the team notes, outputs more randomness than it takes in—a task unachievable by classical computation.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Using the pictured quantum computer model developed by the computing firm Quantinuum, a team of physicists and engineers demonstrated a technique that achieves what is called certified randomness.Quantinuum“Theoretically, I think it’s interesting because you need to put together a lot of technical tools in order to make the theoretical analysis fly,” says Hung, now an assistant professor of electrical engineering at National Taiwan University. “Random-number generation is a central task for modern cryptography and algorithms. You want the encryption to be secure and for the [passkey] to be truly random.”When it comes to Internet security, randomness is a weapon—a mathematically impenetrable shield against malicious adversaries who seek to spy on secret communications and manipulate or steal sensitive data. The two-factor authentication routinely used to protect personal online accounts is a good example: A user logs in to a system with a password but then also uses a secure device to receive a string of randomly generated numbers from an external source. By inputting that string, which can’t be predicted by adversaries because of its randomness, the user verifies their identity and is granted access.“Random numbers are used everywhere in our digital lives,” says Henry Yuen, a computer scientist at Columbia University, who was uninvolved with the study. “We use them to secure our digital communications, run randomized controlled trials for medical testing, power computer simulations of cars and airplanes—it’s important to ensure that the numbers used for these are indeed randomly generated.”In more cryptographic applications, on the other hand, it’s not enough to just generate random numbers. We need to generate random results that we know for certain are the outcome of an unbiased process. “It’s important to be able to prove the randomness to a skeptic who does not trust the device producing the randomness,” says Bill Fefferman, a computer scientist at the University of Chicago, who was not involved in the new work. Implementing such protocols to check each and every outcome would be “impossible classically,” Fefferman says, but possible with the superior computational potential of quantum devices.“Quantum computers and quantum technologies offer the only way to reliably generate and test randomness,” Yuen says. Unlike classical computers, which depend on binary “bits” to process information, quantum computers operate on qubits, which can have an infinite number of possible orientations when existing in a superposition state. These qubits allow quantum computers to process exponentially larger loads of data at much faster rates.Jen ChristiansenThe quantum computer involved in the latest demonstration uses 56 such qubits to run the protocol developed by Aaronson and Hung. The gist of the procedure is relatively straightforward. First, the quantum computer is given a complex problem that requires it to generate random outputs, in a process called random circuit sampling. For a small enough quantum computer, usually under 75 qubits, these outputs can be traced on classical computers to ascertain that the results couldn’t have been generated classically, explains Christopher Monroe, a quantum computing expert at Duke University, who was not involved in the study.Verifying this is the next step in the protocol, but it includes an added caveat: time. The quantum computer must generate its outputs faster than they could be mimicked (or “spoofed”) by any known classical computing method. In the team’s demonstration, the Quantinuum system took a couple of seconds to produce each output. Two national laboratory supercomputers subsequently verified these outputs, ultimately devoting a total of 18 hours of computing time to generate more than 70,000 certified random bits.These bits were certified using a test that gives the outcomes something called a cross-entropy benchmarking (XEB) score, which checks how “ideal” the randomness of the distributions is. A high XEB score coupled with a short response time would mean that a certain outcome is very unlikely to have been influenced by any interference from untrusted sources. The task of classically simulating all that effort to spoof the system would, according to Aaronson, require the continuous work of at least four comparable supercomputers.“The outcome of the [certified randomness test] is governed by quantum-mechanical randomness—it’s not uniformly random,” Aaronson says. For example, in the case of Quantinuum’s 56-qubit computer, 53 out of 56 bits could have a lot of entropy, or randomness, and that would be just fine. “And, in fact, that it’s not uniform is very important; it’s the deviations from uniformity that allow us to test that in the first place that yes, these samples are good. They really did come from this quantum circuit.”But the fact that these measurements must be additionally verified with classical computers puts “important limits on the scalability and utility of this protocol,” Fefferman notes. Somewhat ironically, in order to prove that a quantum computer has performed some task correctly, classical supercomputers need to be brought in to pick apart its work. This is an inherent issue for most of the current generation of experiments seeking to prove quantum advantage, he says.Aaronson is also aware of this limitation. “For exactly the same reason why we believe that these experiments are very hard to spoof using a classical computer, you’re playing this very delicate game where you need to be, like, just at the limit of what a classical computer can do,” Aaronson says.That said, this is still an impressive first step, Fefferman says, and the protocol will be useful for instances such as public lotteries or jury selection, where unbiased fairness is key. “If you want random numbers, that’s trivial—just take a Geiger counter and put it next to some radioactive material,” Aaronson says. “Using classical chaos can be fine if you trust the setup, but doesn’t provide certification against a dishonest server who just ignores the chaotic system and feeds you the output of a pseudorandom generator instead,” Aaronson adds in a reply to a comment on his blog post about the protocol.Whether the protocol will truly have practical value will depend on subsequent research—which is generally the case for many “quantum advantage” experiments. “The hype in the field is just insane right now,” Monroe says. “But there’s something behind it, I’m convinced. Maybe not today, but I think in the long run, we’re going to see these things.”If anything, the new work is still a formidable advance in terms of quantum hardware, Yuen says. “A few years ago we were thrilled to have a handful of high-quality qubits in a lab. Now Quantinuum has made a quantum processor with 56 qubits.”“Quantum advantage is not like landing on the moon—it’s a negative statement,” Aaronson says. “It’s a statement [claiming that] no one can do this using a classical computer. Then classical computing gets to fight back.... The classical hardware keeps improving, and people keep discovering new classical algorithms.”In that sense, quantum computing may be akin to “a moving target” of sorts, Aaronson says. “We expect that, ultimately, for some problems, this war will be won by the quantum side.But if you want to win the war, you have to do problems where the quantum advantage is a little bit iffier, where it’s a little bit more vulnerable.”

April 21, 20254 min readThree Ways Pope Francis Influenced Global Climate ActionThe late Pope Francis supported global climate agreements, advocated for Indigenous people and inspired activismBy Celia Deane-Drummond & The Conversation US Pope Francis receives a plant offered by an Amazon native as he celebrates the closing mass of the Synod on Amazonia on October 27, 2019 at the Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. Andreas Solaro/AFP via Getty ImagesThe following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.The death of Pope Francis has been announced by the Vatican. I first met the late Pope Francis at the Vatican after a conference called Saving Our Common Home and the Future of Life on Earth in July 2018. My colleagues and I sensed something momentous was happening at the heart of the church.At that time, I was helping to set up the new Laudato Si’ research institute at the Jesuit Hall at the University of Oxford. This institute is named after the pope’s 2015 encyclical (a letter to bishops outlining church policy) on climate change.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Its mission is rooted in the pope’s religiously inspired vision of integral ecology– a multidisciplinary approach that addresses social and ecological issues of equality and climate breakdown.Originating from Argentina, Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pope, witnessed firsthand the destruction of the Amazon and the plight of South America’s poorest communities. His concern for justice for vulnerable communities and protection of the planet go hand in hand with his religious leadership.In his first papal letter, Laudato Si’, he called for all people, not just Catholics, to pay more attention to the frailty of both our planet and its people. What we need is no less than a cultural revolution, he wrote. As a theologian, I recognise that he inspired significant change in three key ways.1. At global climate summitsIt’s no coincidence that Pope Francis released Laudato Si’ at a crucial moment in 2015 prior to the UN climate summit, Cop21, in Paris. A follow-up exhortation, or official statement, Laudate Deum, was released in October 2023, just before another UN climate summit, Cop28 in Dubai.Did the decisions at these global meetings shift because of the influence of Pope Francis? Potentially, yes. In Laudate Deum, Pope Francis showed both encouragement and some frustration about the achievements of international agreements so far.He berated the weakness of international politics and believes that Cop21 represented a “significant moment” because the agreement involved everyone.After Cop21, he pointed out how most nations had failed to implement the Paris agreement which called for limiting the global temperature rise in this century to below 2°C. He also called out the lack of monitoring of those commitments and subsequent political inertia. He tried his best to use his prominent position to hold power to account.Promoting a general moral awareness of the need to act in ecologically responsible ways, both in international politics and at the local level is something that previous popes, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI also did. But, Pope Francis’s efforts went beyond that, by connecting much more broadly with grassroots movements.2. By advocating for Indigenous peopleCop28 marked the first time that close to 200 countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels. Pope Francis’s interventions potentially helped shift the needle just a little in the desired direction.His emphasis on listening to Indigenous people may have influenced these gatherings. Compared with previous global climate summits, Cop28 arguably opened up the opportunity to listen to the voices of Indigenous people.However, Indigenous people were still disappointed by the outcomes of Cop28. Pope Francis’s lesser-known exhortation Querida Amazonia, which means “beloved Amazonia,” was published in February 2020.Pope Francis meets with the indigenous community at Muskwa Park in Maskwacis, south of Edmonton, western Canada, on July 25, 2022.Vincenzo Pinto/AFP via Getty ImagesThis exhortation resulted from his conversations with Amazonian communities and helped put Indigenous perspectives on the map. Those perspectives helped shape Catholic social teaching in the encyclical Fratelli Tutti, which means “all brothers and sisters,” published on October 3 2020.For many people living in developing countries where extractive industries such as oil and gas or mining are rife, destruction of land coincides with direct threats to life. Pope Francis advocated for Indigenous environmental defenders, many of whom have been inspired to act by their strong faith.For example, Father Marcelo Pérez, an Indigenous priest living in Mexico, was murdered by drug dealers just after saying mass on October 23 2023 as part of the cost of defending the rights of his people and their land.While 196 environmental defenders were killed globally in 2023, Pope Francis continued to advocate on behalf of the most marginalised people as well as the environment.3. By inspiring activismI’ve been speaking to religious climate activists from different church backgrounds in the UK as part of a multidisciplinary research project on religion, theology and climate change based at the University of Manchester. Most notably, when we asked more than 300 activists representing six different activist groups who most influenced them to get involved in climate action, 61% named Pope Francis as a key influencer.On a larger scale, Laudato Si’ gave rise to the Laudato Si’ movement which coordinates climate activism across the globe. It has 900 Catholic organisations as well as 10,000 of what are known as Laudato Si’ “animators”, who are all ambassadors and leaders in their respective communities.Our institute’s ecclesial affiliate, Tomás Insua, based in Assisi, Italy, originally helped pioneer this global Laudato Si’ movement. We host a number of ecumenical gatherings which bring together people from different denominations and hopefully motivate churchgoers to think and act in a more climate-conscious way.Nobody knows who the next pope might be. Given the current turmoil in politics and shutting down of political will to address the climate emergency, we can only hope they will build on the legacy of Pope Francis and influence political change for the good, from the grassroots frontline right up to the highest global ambitions.This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

April 21, 20252 min readThe New Tornado Alley Has Been Hyperactive this YearMore tornadoes than usual have already struck the U.S. in 2025—and many of them have been touching down farther east than they had in the pastBy Mark Fischetti edited by Dean VisserEF2 tornado lofting debris from a home in Lockett, Texas. Jason Weingart/Getty ImagesBy last Saturday, the National Weather Service reported that 552 tornadoes had occurred in the U.S. this year—well above the average total of 337 for the period of January through April in 1991–2020. Then an outbreak struck Texas and Oklahoma on Saturday night, killing at least three people. Parts of those two states were at the center of the twister-prone “tornado alley” for most of the 1900s, but this well-known corridor has been shifting steadily eastward in the past three and a half decades. This year many of the touchdowns that caused deaths occurred in Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee, all east of the old alley.In 2023 Scientific American created a map, based on a then new extensive study to show the shift in large tornado outbreaks.Daniel P. Huffman (map); Source: “Examining the Changes in the Spatial Manifestation and the Rate of Arrival of Large Tornado Outbreaks,” by Niloufar Nouri and Naresh Devineni, in Environmental Research Communications, Vol. 4; February 2022 (data)On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Why does the U.S. have so many tornadoes?Far more tornadoes strike the U.S. than any other country, and this is because of its geography. Wet, westerly winds from the Pacific Ocean become dry as they pass over the the Rocky Mountains, then become high and cool as they blow farther east. Meanwhile warm, humid air streams northward from the Gulf of Mexico, moving at a lower elevation. Flat terrain along these paths allows the two streams to run into each other. The angles at which they collide tend to create unstable air and wind shear—two big factors that favor tornado formation.Where has tornado alley moved?For decades, most of the largest outbreaks occurred across northeastern Texas, eastern Oklahoma, and western Arkansas and Missouri. But between 1989 and 2019, the focus shifted eastward by 400 to 500 miles, covering western Kentucky and Tennessee plus northern Mississippi and Alabama.Why is tornado alley sliding eastward?Most tornadoes are created by a supercell—a strong thunderstorm with a rotating updraft of air. Supercells tend to form when warm, humid, low-level air interacts with cool, dry, higher air. And climate change is now generating more of that warmer, moister air. Tornadoes also are more likely to develop when the local atmosphere is unstable, and warming increases instability. Climate change is warming the Gulf of Mexico as well, and this can send generous amounts of water vapor into the southeastern U.S.—farther east than it tended to travel decades ago. In addition, climate change has moved the rough north-south boundary between dry western U.S. air and moist, eastern U.S. air about 140 miles to the east.Why does the shift matter?Tornado shelters are common in Texas and Oklahoma but less so in other U.S. regions. The Southeast is more densely populated, and mobile homes (which often fare poorly in windstorms) are prevalent. Tornadoes in the Southeast also occur at night more often than those that strike farther west do, in part because winds can bring ample moisture from the Gulf after dark. And nighttime makes it much harder to see a storm coming.

April 21, 20258 min readProposed Trump Cuts to NOAA Threaten Hurricane Hunters and Toxic Algal Bloom MonitoringThe Trump administration has proposed gutting NOAA’s cooperative institutes, which study everything from improving lifesaving weather forecasts to monitoring fish stocksBy Chelsea Harvey & E&E News Commander Mark Nelson, with NOAA, climbs the steps to one of the hurricane hunter planes after a press conference at MacDill Air Force base on Thursday, May 22, 2008. ZUMA Press, Inc./Alamy Stock PhotoCLIMATEWIRE | Researchers in Oklahoma are hard at work on a new lifesaving weather forecasting system. In Michigan, they’re keeping tabs on toxic algae blooms. In Florida, they’re studying tropical cyclones by flying into the hearts of hurricanes.These are just a handful of the hundreds of research projects ongoing at NOAA’s cooperative institutes, a network of 16 science consortiums involving 80 universities and research institutions across 33 states.But many CI scientists are worried their work — and their jobs — may soon be on the chopping block.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.A new proposal from the White House Office of Management and Budget would dramatically reorganize NOAA and gut most of its climate research programs in fiscal 2026. Part of that plan includes terminating funding for NOAA’s cooperative institutes and its 10 laboratories, which are heavily staffed by CI researchers.The plan, presented last week in an OMB document known as a “passback” memorandum, is technically still hypothetical. While passbacks typically outline the priorities eventually included in the White House’s budget proposal each fiscal year, Congress must ultimately approve the president’s request.But even if Congress rejects the cuts that the Trump administration proposes for fiscal 2026, experts worry that funding for the remainder of fiscal 2025 is still in question.“Once a certain amount of damage is done, it's not recoverable.” —Waleed Abdalati, director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES)Congress last month passed a continuing resolution to avert a shutdown and fund the government through the end of the current fiscal year. But the bill provides little guidance for agencies on how exactly they must use their funds.“The administration can largely move money however it wants within the agency,” said Waleed Abdalati, director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) housed at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “That's the authority Congress afforded them by not articulating more detail in its agency budgets.”In theory, some experts say, that means the Trump administration could direct agencies to shuffle their funds in ways that would diminish or eliminate programs previously funded in fiscal 2024.And the OMB passback suggests exactly that: directing NOAA to align its 2025 spending with the plan laid out in the memo — even though that proposal has not yet been approved by Congress.“OMB expects that the Department will exercise all allowable authorities and flexibilities to align the 2025 operating plans with the 2026 Passback,” the document states.There’s no indication that NOAA has yet complied. And it’s unclear whether this direction would legally sidestep Congress’ authority to direct the appropriation of funds.But if the agency began implementing the passback’s plan this year, a broad swath of programs could see their funding suddenly curtailed — including the cooperative institutes.Meanwhile, some CIs across the country have not yet received any of their 2025 funds. Some are still waiting on some of their 2024 money, due to a variety of payment delays. Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick — head of the agency that houses NOAA — is personally reviewing all funding commitments above $100,000.“The money is very slow in coming, and a number of institutes are at great risk of not having the funding after a couple months from now,” Abdalati said. “If that's the case, we’re required to either lay off or furlough people until the money comes.”Even if Congress restores funding for 2026, cuts and layoffs in the near term would be devastating, he added. Long-term datasets would be disrupted. Many staffers likely would seek new jobs, taking their knowledge and experience with them.“Once a certain amount of damage is done, it's not recoverable,” Abdalati said.Meanwhile, CI directors say even short-term interruptions in their research could threaten the safety of the communities they serve.CIGLR — the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research, housed at the University of Michigan — keeps tabs on toxic algae in lakes Erie and Huron, where nearby communities are well acquainted with the dangers. A harmful algal bloom sparked the Toledo water crisis of 2014, in which 400,000 residents in and around the Ohio city had no safe drinking water for two days.An algae bloom in Lake Erie, seen here on the shores of Maumee Bay State Park in Ohio, polluted the water supply of Toledo in 2014.Ty Wright for The Washington Post via Getty ImagesBut because of the ongoing funding delays, “we're looking at having to lay off a substantial number of our workers in the next few months,” said CIGLR director Gregory Dick.And it’s possible the institute will have to halt its algal monitoring program. If that’s the case, the region may be less equipped to predict and prepare for events such as the Toledo water crisis.“One of my big fears is that we'll be more vulnerable to such incidents,” Dick said, adding that the program “seems like it's in limbo — it's complete uncertainty.”From the sea to the skyThe cooperative institutes are one part of NOAA’s broader research ecosystem and just one of many proposed cuts across the department.The passback memo calls for the elimination of NOAA’s entire Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which facilitates a variety of Earth system studies. Alongside the CIs, OAR houses 10 laboratories and a number of other programs including its global ocean observing and monitoring program; its ocean acidification program; and its Sea Grant program, which partners with 34 universities on marine research and education initiatives.But the CIs play a special role in NOAA science — and in its impact on U.S. communities — experts say.“The CIs are 50 percent of everything we do in research,” said Craig McLean, NOAA’s former top scientist. “They are of equal vitality and importance to the NOAA mission as every NOAA scientist — many of whom have come from the CIs.”The CIs exist via a particular type of federal funding award known as a cooperative agreement, which operates much like a grant but involves close collaboration with federal employees. Each agreement is awarded on a five-year basis, with the potential to renew for another five years. After that, universities must compete again for a new award.Still, many cooperative institutes have been around for decades — CIRES, the oldest and largest, was established in 1967. Many involve multiple university partners and employ dozens or hundreds of staff. And many maintain long-standing data collection programs with major impacts on human societies.CIMAR, for instance — the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, housed at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa — monitors “basically the entire ecosystem of the tropical Pacific,” said its director, Douglas Luther. That includes everything from the life histories of marine animals to the ocean’s rising sea levels.And CIMERS at Oregon State University — the Cooperative Institute for Marine Ecosystem and Resources Studies — keeps tabs on everything from salmon stock in the Pacific Northwest to the movement of ships in the remote Arctic Ocean. It’s also active in ocean exploration, mapping parts of the seabed where methane reserves or critical minerals may be abundant.[The cuts represent a] "complete sabotaging of American weather forecasting. It would totally change the game in terms of our prediction.” —Marc Alessi, a science fellow with the Union of Concerned ScientistsThese studies help keep the U.S. competitive with other global science leaders, said CIMERS director Francis Chan.“There's a new science race going on,” he said. “People are thinking about what are the different ways of using the ocean.”Other CIs help improve the forecasting tools used by NOAA’s own National Weather Service.Scientists from the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies are key members of NOAA’s famed Hurricane Hunter missions, which fly specialized data-collecting aircraft through tropical cyclones.Meanwhile, scientists at the Cooperative Institute for Severe and High-Impact Weather Research and Operations (CIWRO), are developing products to help meteorologists spot dangerous weather events with more advance warning. One of these is Warn-on-Forecast, an experimental system designed to rapidly incorporate radar and satellite observations into a high-resolution model, producing updated forecasts about every 15 minutes.And it’s showing promise.As twisters whirled across the central U.S. last month, amid an outbreak that killed dozens in the Southeast and Midwest, Warn-on-Forecast predictions helped accurately predict a storm track in the Missouri Ozarks with about two hours of lead time, according to CIWRO’s director, Greg McFarquhar.The forecast, combined with other data, prompted National Weather Service staff to contact emergency managers on the evening of March 14 and warn them that long-track tornadoes may be forming. NWS followed up shortly afterward with a Special Weather Statement, narrowing down the tornado tracks to nearby Carter and Ripley counties.When a strong tornado touched down shortly afterward, more than 125 people already had checked in at a nearby Carter County shelter. There were no fatalities reported in the aftermath of the event.Traditional forecasting tools typically predict tornadoes with an average of only 13 minutes of advance warning, according to NOAA. The extra time afforded by new tools like Warn-on-Forecast “makes a huge difference in terms of people being able to get out of the way of these tornadoes,” McFarquhar said.‘A big loss to the American people’With funding delays dragging on and existential cuts looming, scientists say these research projects are all in jeopardy.Some CI directors told POLITICO's E&E News that their institutes likely would shut down without NOAA funding. Larger institutes like CIRES said they might continue to exist in a diminished form — but the loss of NOAA resources would take a huge toll.“We wouldn't be as robust,” said Abdalati, the CIRES director. “And honestly it would be, I think, a big loss to the American people — because we do things that matter, that are important.”Much of the Trump administration’s attacks on NOAA research center on climate science. The conservative policy blueprint Project 2025 referred to the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research as the "source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism” and called for much of its work to be dissolved — a plan reflected in the OMB passback memo.But CI scientists note their projects delve far beyond climate change research. And many have implications for the economy, national security and competition with countries such as China — priorities the Trump administration has claimed to support.“I think that's the part that worries me,” said Chan, the CIMERS director. “Are people making decisions because they don't have the full picture of what science is doing? If that's the case, we're open to providing information.”The cuts proposed in the OMB passback memo have sparked widespread backlash among science advocates.The American Meteorological Society warned in a statement that eliminating NOAA’s research arm would have “unknown — yet almost certainly disastrous — consequences for public safety and economic health.”The cuts represent a "complete sabotaging of American weather forecasting,” said Marc Alessi, a science fellow with the nonprofit advocacy organization Union of Concerned Scientists. “It would totally change the game in terms of our prediction.”Some lawmakers in Congress have raised similar concerns.Nine Democratic representatives from New Jersey submitted a letter last week to Lutnick decrying the proposed cuts, which they argued would endanger their state and its nearly 1,800 miles of coastline. They expressed particular concern about the proposed elimination of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey. The lab is a leading developer of the atmosphere and ocean models that inform weather forecasts.“Without their work, Americans will not receive accurate weather or tidal predictions, impacting our safety, economy and national security,” the letter stated.Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado said in a statement to E&E News that worsening droughts and wildfires across the western United States mean that the "work our scientists and civil servants do at NOAA is essential to U.S. national security and the personal safety and daily lives of Americans.”Colorado is the only state to house two cooperative institutes, and it's home to the largest of the CIs.Despite these kinds of concerns, McLean, the former NOAA top scientist, said the response from Congress hasn’t gone far enough. Some CIs — like the extreme weather-focused institute in Oklahoma — are housed in red states, where Republicans in Congress have so far raised few objections to cuts at NOAA.“On the Republican side, they're cowering behind Trump's voice and they're not raising any alarm,” McLean said. “And they're going to watch many assets and attributes in their states go away.”Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

April 21, 20253 min readTo Reduce Dementia Risk, Treat High Blood PressureLowering blood pressure through medication can reduce someone's risk of developing dementiaBy Liz Szabo edited by Allison Parshall SDI Productions/Getty ImagesTreating high blood pressure for as little as four years can cut the risk of dementia by 15 percent, according to clinical a trial results published on Monday in Nature Medicine. In the investigation, intensive blood pressure reduction also lowered the risk of mild cognitive impairment, an early stage of memory loss in people who can still live independently, by 16 percent.Although research has long linked hypertension and dementia, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that taking medications for the former actually reduces someone’s risk of developing the latter.“Our study shows that dementia is preventable,” says Jiang He, a physician who studies epidemiology, internal medicine and neurology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The researchers studied nearly 34,000 people with high blood pressure in rural Chinese villages. The team randomly assigned half of the villages to an intensive hypertension reduction program, and people in the other villages received their normal care. After four years, 4.6 percent of those who underwent intensive blood pressure control—the goal of which was to lower their blood pressure to less than 130/80 millimeters of mercury (mm HG)—were diagnosed with dementia compared with 5.4 percent in the group that received standard care. Because doctors treated people for only four years, it’s not known if controlling blood pressure for a longer period of time would further reduce the dementia risk.Those results provide “strong evidence” to support using antihypertensive medications to prevent dementia in people with high blood pressure, He said.Beth Abramson, who studies cardiac disease prevention and women's health at the University of Toronto, calls the results encouraging. Many people ignore their hypertension or fail to take medications as directed, even though the condition can cause heart attacks and strokes, says Abramson, who is co-chair of the American College of Cardiology Hypertension Workgroup and was not involved in the new study.In the U.S., 48 percent of adults have hypertension, defined as a blood pressure that is consistently at or above 130/80 mm HG.The hope of preventing dementia may motivate some people to take their blood pressure more seriously, says Mitchell S. V. Elkind, chief clinical science officer at the American Heart Association, who also wasn’t involved in the new study. Surveys show dementia is one of the diseases that Americans fear most.According to the World Health Organization, 57 million people worldwide had dementia in 2021. This number is expected to nearly double every 20 years, reaching 82 million in 2030 and 152 million in 2050, according to the nonprofit organization Alzheimer’s Disease International.The new findings resemble those from separate clinical trial research published in January in Neurology. That study treated people with hypertension for 3.3 years and followed them for a median of seven years. The investigation focused on lowering systolic blood pressure, the first number in a blood pressure reading, in older adults. Of the 4,200 people in the study who underwent cognitive assessment, the group that who decreased systolic blood pressure to less than 120 mm HG had a reduced risk of mild cognitive impairment or probable dementia; these participants’ risk was lowered by 11 percent compared with people who decreased their systolic blood pressure to below 140 mm HG. The study didn’t find any difference in the risk of probable dementia alone—possibly because it was smaller than the new study in China, because dementia can take many years to develop or because the trial was stopped early thanks to its overwhelmingly positive results in preventing cardiovascular events.Scientists don’t know exactly how hypertension might contribute to dementia, says David Reboussin, a professor of biostatistics and data science at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine and first author of the January Neurology study. But, he adds, “if there is anything going on with small vessels and their ability to get oxygen to the brain tissue, then brain tissue will suffer. It will atrophy and die.”

OpinionApril 21, 20254 min readKeeping Kids Interested in Science Is a Matter of LanguageAs children get older, their understanding of science and being a scientist changes. The words adults use are a critical part of keeping them engaged in discoveryBy Ryan F. Lei MashaStarus/Getty ImagesOne of the most fun parts of being a parent has to be watching children discover the world around them. After all, children are endlessly curious, and part of the fun is seeing the wonder on children’s faces as they discover even simple objects and ideas.“What’s that in your hand? Is it—a ball? Do you think it will roll down this hill?” you might say to your toddler, then enjoy the shouts of delight as they explore just that.This is science in action—making an observation, testing an idea, seeing what happens and then asking the next question.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Yet over time parents can find that their child might be less interested in exploring the world around them, and less likely to explore the underlying “why.” That is, kids seem less interested in science. Why does this happen?Of course, there are a number of different factors at play, but in the research my colleagues and I have done, what might surprise some folks is that this loss of interest may partly come from subtle language cues children hear. And the language cues don’t come from just parents; they can also come via media they consume or in school that treats science as an identity rather than a process. All kids can do science, but over time, they begin to think of being ascientist as something only reserved for certain kinds of kids.Here’s what we’ve learned, and here are some steps you can take to keep the curiosity alive and the science flowing.The typical language that many adults use with children might be to say, “Let’s be scientists today!” (to promote curiosity) or “You’re such a good scientist!” (to praise their child). But this kind of language that focuses on science as an identity, rather than a set of activities and actions that people do, can be demotivating. For example, girls (but not boys) as young as four persisted longer when cued to participate in science activities by saying, “Let’s do science” rather than “Let’s be scientists.”The idea here is that when thinking of a scientist, children might be calling to mind a (white) man. So if they don’t fit those identities, they might disengage from an activity designed “for scientists.” Relatedly, children might believe that being a scientist requires special intellectual abilities—ones they believe that certain groups like (white) men have, but not others.These stereotypical beliefs that science is reserved for only certain kinds of people emerges surprisingly early. By first grade, girls say they are less interested in computer science and engineering. Perhaps more on the nose, when asked to draw what a scientist looks like, children tend to draw men, though this has improved over time. Such stereotyping has a cumulative effect, such that by high school, girls who are at the 80th percentile of science ability (an index of standardized test scores and high school STEM GPAs) are equally likely to major in certain STEM majors as boys in the lowest percentile.The good news is that these subtle linguistic cues can also be harnessed to promote engagement with science in surprisingly potent ways. Cuing science as actions that we do, for example, seems to protect children’s interest and motivation to engage with science over time. Even outside of more controlled lab settings, students whose teachers use more action-focused language (e.g., let’s do science) persisted longer in a novel science game compared to students whose teachers used more identity-focused language.So now you are perhaps thinking, “Great, I will just focus on doing science and the actions that make up the scientific process!” And certainly that is likely to be effective even as children transition from childhood to adolescence and into early adulthood. But it’s also true that, around adolescence, your kids are actively trying on and ultimately forming different identities for themselves. So while identity-focused language about science might be demotivating for young children, identity-focused language may help teens stay interested in science. For example, cueing a future identity (e.g., scientist, doctor) that is based on science motivated middle schoolers to do more homework, and was associated with higher grades. That might be because if teens think of themselves as scientists, then they are willing to do what it takes to be whom they want to become.Ultimately parents want their children to enjoy learning, exploring and figuring things out for themselves. Those activities also just happen to be critical pieces of the scientific process. Emphasizing these actions when children are younger might help them persist in hard tasks or lessons. But as children get older, gain experience in these activities and start forming ideas of whom they want to become, emphasizing future identities that are science-dependent might also be helpful in maintaining an interest in science.How these two versions of subtle language cues might work together (or not) is yet to be tested, but perhaps this is some science to be done by your future scientist.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

April 21, 20254 min readOzempic Shots Have Taken Off. Why Haven’t GLP-1 Pills?Some experts say oral versions of popular weight-loss drugs such as Wegovy could offer people more flexibility and accessibility. What’s keeping the pills from taking off?By Hannah Seo edited by Lauren J. Young Anastasiia Zabolotna/Getty ImagesPopular weight-loss and type 2 diabetes drugs such as Wegovy and Ozempic are typically taken as self-administered injections—a bearable albeit unpleasant jab to the abdomen or thigh. But drug manufacturers and researchers recognize the perks of pills.An oral version of these drugs—which are known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists—could be more accessible and would come without the inconvenience, pain or medical waste of shots. But an assortment of scientific and logistical obstacles is preventing GLP-1 pills from taking off in the same way that the injectable forms of these drugs have. Pfizer recently announced it decided to discontinue clinical trials of its oral GLP-1 medication for weight loss, called danuglipron, after a study participant experienced a liver injury that was potentially linked to the experimental drug. A pill version of semaglutide—the generic name for Novo Nordisk’s diabetes drug Ozempic and its weight-loss version Wegovy—was approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a type 2 diabetes treatment in 2019, but it has largely flown under the radar.What do we know about these oral GLP-1 drugs, and what’s holding them back?On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Unlike the array of new injectable GLP-1 drugs, there is only one oral GLP-1 medicine that is currently on the market: Novo Nordisk’s Rybelsus. This semaglutide pill mimics the gut hormone GLP-1 in the same way the injections do, and it must be taken daily compared with Ozempic’s once-weekly injections. Rybelsus is approved for type 2 diabetes but not for weight loss, which is likely part of the reason it has garnered less attention, says Reshmi Srinath, an endocrinologist and director of the weight and metabolism program at Mount Sinai Health System. Rybelsus is typically prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes who have persistently high blood sugar but “are sort of opposed to using injections,” she says.Although there are currently no FDA-approved oral GLP-1 medications for weight loss, early data from clinical trials hint that a pill form could be as effective as its injectable counterparts. In one 2023 study funded by Novo Nordisk, scientists found that participants without type 2 diabetes who took oral semaglutide every day for 68 weeks lost an average of 15 percent of their body weight. Participants who took a placebo lost an average of 2.4 percent. In a 2021 study, adults who were considered to be overweight or to be living with obesity (who also did not have diabetes) were treated with once-weekly semaglutide or placebo injections. It showed similar results: participants who took the drug lost an average of 15 percent of body weight lost, whereas those who took the placebo lost an average of just 2.4 percent. “The safety and efficacy of oral semaglutide has not been compared to injectable semaglutide in a head-to-head clinical trial,” a Novo Nordisk spokesperson told Scientific American.Other health benefits from injectable GLP-1 medications might also carry over to pills. A recent study that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (and also funded by Novo Nordisk) evaluated about 10,000 participants who had type 2 diabetes and also atherosclerosis or chronic kidney disease, or both. Taking oral semaglutide was associated with a significantly lower risk of heart attack and stroke among participants compared with taking a placebo. The recent NEJM findings suggest GLP-1 pills can provide health improvements that are “directly in line with what we’ve seen in the other injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists,” says Matthew Cavender, a study co-author and a cardiologist at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine.Injectable GLP-1 drugs are shot into subcutaneous fat and released slowly into the bloodstream, whereas pills are ingested and must avoid being broken down in the gastrointestinal tract. This challenge is why some scientists question whether oral GLP-1 drugs can be as potent as injectables, Cavender says. Rybelsus, however, is formulated with a special molecule that helps it to quickly pass through the stomach lining. Some of the medication will break down, he adds, but enough will make it across to result in health improvements. For full effectiveness, drug manufacturers recommend that people take the pill on an empty stomach and refrain from eating for 30 minutes after they take it.Like their injectable versions, GLP-1 pills can cause gastrointestinal issues. In the 2023 study, 80 percent of participants who took oral semaglutide for weight loss experienced gastrointestinal problems compared with 46 percent of those who took a placebo. The 2021 study found that 74 percent of injectable semaglutide users experienced gastrointestinal side effects versus 48 percent of those on placebo.Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of the injectable weight-loss medication Zepbound, has its own oral GLP-1 drug in the pipeline, orforglipron, which is being investigated as a treatment for both type 2 diabetes and obesity. Like Rybelsus, orforglipron would be a daily pill—but it wouldn’t have meal-timing restrictions. Early data show that people lose between 10 and 15 percent of their body weight after 36 weeks on the drug. Another recently completed phase 3 clinical trial of people with type 2 diabetes showed the oral medication was also effective at lowering blood glucose levels. Eli Lilly plans to begin orforglipron’s review process for regulatory approval for weight loss in 2025 and for type 2 diabetes in 2026.In a response to questions about Pfizer ending the trial of its oral drug, a company spokesperson pointed Scientific American to the press release that announced that decision and said Pfizer is working on other early-stage oral drug candidates for weight loss, including one that works on a similar hormone to GLP-1 that is currently in phase 2 clinical trials.More forms of GLP-1 medication are a good thing overall, Srinath says, because they give more options to people seeking treatment. And pills are generally cheaper for pharmaceutical manufacturers to produce than injectable medications, which could potentially translate to lower costs for consumers.But the introduction of new oral drugs raises a lot of new questions as well, Cavender says. Do different pills require different dosing strategies? How does that change in people who may have multiple health concerns? “We’ve got to figure out what’s the right way of [providing GLP-1 pills] in all these different circumstances,” he says.

April 18, 20255 min readTrump Administration's Science Cuts Come for NSF FundingThe National Science Foundation, which funds key science and engineering research, is the latest U.S. agency to be disrupted by Elon Musk’s DOGEBy Dan Garisto & Nature magazine Some researchers receiving grants from the U.S. National Science Foundation use its ice core facility in Lakewood, Colorado, to store samples. Jim West/Alamy Stock PhotoAll new research grants have been frozen at the US National Science Foundation (NSF) — an action apparently ordered by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an initiative by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk to cut spending and workers across the US government.DOGE is also now reviewing a list of active research grants assessed in February by the NSF for terms associated with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), and considering more than 200 of them for termination, NSF staff members have told Nature.On Monday, three DOGE members arrived at NSF headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. NSF employees say that DOGE has directed hundreds of research proposals approved during a multi-step review process — but not yet finalized — be sent back to NSF programme officers, who have been told to perform “mitigation work” without any further details. Science first reported the arrival of DOGE at the NSF this week.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.With a budget of US$9 billion, the NSF is one of the largest funders of basic research in the world. From the start of Donald Trump’s second US presidency, the agency has gone through whiplash-inducing changes: it froze all grant payments and then unfroze them in February following court orders; it fired its probationary employees in February and weeks later rehired half of them. And earlier this month, the agency cut its graduate research fellowship programme by half, offering only 1,000 positions instead of the usual 2,000.The NSF has been under heightened scrutiny following the release of an October 2024 report authored by the office of Ted Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas who now chairs the Senate Science Committee. The report alleged that 3,483 research grants awarded between January 2021 and April 2024 by the NSF during the administration of Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, “went to questionable projects that promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) tenets”, wasting $2 billion. Today, Democrats in the Science, Space and Technology Committee of the US House of Representatives released an analysis of the Cruz report. The analysis claims major flaws with the report, suggesting that it “jeopardizes the economic and national security of the United States” by “undermining the important work of scientific researchers, educators, and institutions”.A spokesperson for the NSF says it “continues to issue awards” and declined to answer Nature’s questions. Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the White House, says that “the Trump administration is committed to ensuring that federal research spending is in line with the priorities of everyday Americans.” Cruz’s office did not immediately respond to Nature’s requests for comment.To better understand the situation at the NSF, Nature spoke to five staff members, who were granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the press.DOGE arrivesWhile DOGE visited other US agencies over the past two months — in some cases dismantling them entirely — NSF staffers held their collective breath.But on Wednesday, DOGE turned its attention to the NSF’s grants, the focus of the agency’s mission. Documents seen by Nature show that two members of DOGE, Luke Farritor and Zachary Terrell, have been given access to grant management systems and used that access to prevent grants from receiving funding that were already approved but awaiting finalization. “That, of course, raises the hairs on the back of our neck in a worrisome way,” an NSF programme officer says.Research projects at the NSF go through multiple steps before approval. Proposals are first submitted to NSF programme officers with expertise in the scientific field they focus on. If the proposals pass muster with the officers, those staff members then commission a review from independent experts outside the agency. Only the strongest applications pass this step — the typical success rate is between 20% and 30%. Division directors within the NSF then give the final approval and send the grants on for finalization with the Division of Grants and Agreements. This is where grants are currently being sent back from.Proposals that receive final approval are essentially always funded — until now, the employees say. Before DOGE’s arrival, new research awards at the agency had slowed by half, relative to 2024, Science has reported. On 16 April, they stopped completely.A report under fireThis isn’t the first time since Trump took office that the NSF has re-examined its grants. In February, the agency initiated a review of all its grants to ensure that they weren’t in violation of executive orders from Trump on “radical and wasteful” DEI programmes and “gender ideology”. At that time, it was flagging grants containing any of hundreds of words that the Cruz report claimed were indicators of left-wing ideologies rather than hard science — such as “women”, “black men”, and “inequality”. Since 1980, the US Congress has mandated that as part of its mission, the NSF should broaden the participation of under-represented groups in science.The House analysis found that the report inappropriately flagged grants at minority-serving institutions because the grants referred to the minority status of the institution. It also found that the Cruz report contained a “slew of embarrassing mistakes”, including that it flagged grants completely unrelated to DEI initiatives, such as the genomic diversity of rice and female leopard seals. Additionally, 14% of the 3,483 grants were duplicates, so they were double-counted.Zoe Lofgren, a US representative from California and the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, sent the analysis to the NSF earlier today. “It is imperative that NSF is not intimidated into accepting these vacuous findings and undermining its merit review process by substituting the Cruz Report’s slander for expert opinion,” Lofgren wrote in a letter to NSF director Sethuraman Panchanathan.Most of the grants, the analysis found, were flagged because they included language about “broader impacts” of the research to society, a mandatory requirement passed unanimously by the Senate in 2010, before Cruz was a senator, and then again in 2017, after he was.Anthony Gitter, a computational biologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, had a grant about using deep learning for protein modelling flagged by the Cruz report. It contained a single sentence about offering summer research opportunities to underrepresented minorities as part of the broader impact statement. The Cruz report “plays into the narrative that universities are these elitist places that harbour out-of-touch academics that are no longer doing science,” he says. “But it’s out of touch with the data.”This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on April 17, 2025.

April 18, 20254 min readThis Impossible New Color Is So Rare That Only Five People Have Seen ItResearchers discover a new color outside the range of human color vision, but you have to laser your retinas to see itBy Jacek Krywko edited by Allison ParshallTeal is as close as you can get to seeing the new color without having your eyes lasered. Getty ImagesThere are only so many colors that the typical human eye can see; estimates put the number just below 10 million. But now, for the first time, scientists say they’ve broken out of that familiar spectrum and into a new world of color. In a paper published on Friday in Science Advances, researchers detail how they used a precise laser setup to stimulate the retinas of five participants, making them the first humans to see a color beyond our visual range: an impossibly saturated bluish green.Our retinas contain three types of cone cells, photoreceptors that detect the wavelengths of light. S cones pick up relatively short wavelengths, which we see as blue. M cones react to medium wavelengths, which we see as green. And L cones are triggered by long wavelengths, which we see as red. These red, green and blue signals travel to the brain, where they’re combined into the full-color vision we experience.But these three cone types handle overlapping ranges of light: the light that activates M cones will also activate either S cones or L cones. “There’s no light in the world that can activate only the M cone cells because, if they are being activated, for sure one or both other types get activated as well,” says Ren Ng, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the University of California, Berkeley.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Ng and his research team wanted to try getting around that fundamental limitation, so they developed a technicolor technique they call “Oz.”“The name comes from the Wizard of Oz, where there’s a journey to the Emerald City, where things look the most dazzling green you’ve ever seen,” Ng explains. On their own expedition, the researchers used lasers to precisely deliver tiny doses of light to select cone cells in the human eye. First, they mapped a portion of the retina to identify each cone cell as either an S, M or L cone. Then, using the laser, they delivered light only to M cone cells.It wasn’t exactly a comfortable setup. “This is not a consumer-oriented device, right? This was a basic visual science and neuroscience project,” Ng says. In fact, the researchers experimented on themselves: three of the five participants were co-authors of the study. The two others were colleagues from the University of Washington, who were unaware of the purpose of the research.Ng himself was one of the participants. He entered a darkened lab and sat at a table. “There were lasers, mirrors, deformable mirrors, modulators, light detectors,” Ng says. There, he had to bite down hard on a bar to keep his head and eyes still. As the laser shone into his retina, he perceived a tiny square of light, roughly the size of a thumbnail viewed at arm’s distance. In that square, he glimpsed the Emerald City: a color the researchers have named “olo.”Ripley CleghornWhat, exactly, did olo look like? Ng describes it as “blue-green with unprecedented saturation”—a perception the human brain conjured up in response to a signal it had never before received from the eye. The closest thing to olo that can be displayed on a computer screen is teal, or the color represented by the hexadecimal code #00ffcc, Ng says. If you want to try envisioning olo, take that teal as the starting point: Imagine that you are adjusting the latter on a computer. You keep the hue itself steady but gradually increase the saturation. At some point, you reach a limit of what your screen can show you. You keep increasing the saturation past what you can find in the natural world until you reach the limit of saturation perceptible by humans—resulting in what you’d see from a laser pointer that emitted almost entirely teal light. Olo lies even further than that.To check if what the participants saw as olo really was a color beyond humans’ standard visual range, the researchers completed color-matching experiments in which they could compare olo with a teal laser and adjust the color’s saturation by adding or subtracting white light. All participants found that if they added white light to olo, desaturating it, the new color would match the laser, confirming that olo lies beyond the normal human range of color vision.“It’s a fascinating study, a truly groundbreaking advance in the ability to understand the photoreceptor mechanisms underlying color vision. The technical demands necessary to achieve this are enormous,” says Manuel Spitschan, who studies light’s effects on human behavior at the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics in Tübingen, Germany, and the Technical University of Munich and was not involved in the new study. “An open question, is how this advance can be used.”Ng’s team dreams of one day building screens that can scan your retina to display perfect images and videos by delivering light to individual cones—enabling crisp, nonpixelated visuals in impossible colors. “That’s going to be extremely hard to do, but I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility,” Ng says. More immediately, he speculates, Oz could be used to let congenitally color-blind patients experience colors such as green and red for the first time—but this wouldn’t be an actual treatment. “The Oz experience is transient,” Ng says. “It’s not permanent.”“It’s a technical breakthrough, and I would love to have it in my lab,” says Maarten Kamermans, who studies vision and the retina at the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience and was not involved in the new study. “Think of animal research. We could impose animal types of photoreceptors on human subjects to say, ‘Oh, this is really what a dog would see, what a mouse would see, what a goldfish would see,’” he says. “Now this would be interesting”.

April 17, 2025How the THC in Weed Affects Your BrainMost people know weed gets you high—but do you know how THC actually does it?Marijuana contains more than 500 active compounds. But most people focus on two: There’s cannabidiol, or CBD, which reduces inflammation.And then there’s THC, which is the main psychoactive component—it’s the reason weed gives you the relaxed and “euphoric” sensation of being high.THC stands for tetrahydrocannabinol. It’s a compound that comes from the flowers of female cannabis plants, though there’s some in other parts of the plant, too.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.In raw cannabis, most THC is in the form of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, or THCA. That means the molecules contain an extra acid group.THCA won’t get you high. But you convert THCA to THC by heating weed, vaporizing it or exposing it to sunlight.When you consume cannabis by smoking, vaping, dabbing or eating “edibles”, THC enters your bloodstream.From there, it crosses the blood-brain barrier and binds to cannabinoid receptorsin brain regions that control memory, appetite, fear and motor control.The compound blocks short-term memory, altering your perception of time.It tells your brain you’re hungry, and makes food smell and taste better. It also triggers the release of dopamine, creating intense feelings of pleasure.Ancient Chinese and South Asian people used cannabis as medicine for thousands of years.Ancient Romans used it to cure earaches. In Africa, it was used to alleviate childbirth pain and treat malaria.The plant was also used to make paper in China and the Middle East, and Muslims introduced the process to Europe.Over several centuries, this led to two different versions of the same plant: one that was bred for high THC and one that was bred for industrial purposes.In the 1830s Irish doctor William O'Shaughnessy learned about medicinal cannabis while teaching in India.O'Shaughnessy started using it to treat muscle spasms and cholera, and he reported his success to Western researchers who quickly began using it on everything from coughing to pain to gonorrhea.By the early 1900s, Americans were familiar with cannabis.But in the mid-1800s, the Mexican press started reporting on “marihuana” (spelled with an “h” or a “g”), a drug that was allegedly making people become mentally ill and violent.It’s unclear what actually caused the highly publicized incidents.But Mexico outlawed the drug in 1920. In the U.S. Congress followed suit, effectively making marihuana illegal in 1937 by imposing huge taxes on it, and states criminalized selling or possessing it.In 1970 the Controlled Substances Act designated “marijuana” (which had come to be spelled with a “j” in the U.S.) as a Schedule I illegal drug, alongside heroin.That designation has always been controversial.As early as 1972, experts recommended decriminalizing marijuana based on new studies that showed it wasn’t addictive, harmful or a stepping stone to worse drugs.But President Richard Nixon refused.THC does have some risks.As a psychoactive compound, high doses of THC can fuel panic attacks and paranoid thoughts.It can worsen mental health issues for people with a genetic predisposition for schizophrenia. And because THC impairs motor function, driving while high is dangerous.But for most people, a moderate amount of THC is safe and often helpful. It can relieve nausea.It can also help with anxiety, insomnia, pain, and muscle spasms, though CBD is more effective for some of those issues.There’s a lot we still don’t know about weed, though, because of restrictions on studying it.Starting in 1974, to study marijuana, researchers had to obtain it through the National Institute on Drug Abuse, or NIDA, which has mostly supported studies focused on the drug’s harms.Also, NIDA’s marijuana is low in THC and often low-quality, making it ineffective for studying what’s actually on the market.But we’re about to get much more research on the drug.In 2022 President Joe Biden signed a bill allowing more institutions and private companies to grow and handle cannabis for research purposes.Among the things scientists hope to study are different types of THC.While they’ve historically focused on delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, isomers of the compound have recently started hitting the market—essentially, these are versions of THC with subtle differences in their chemical structures.Delta-8-THC and delta-10-THC, for instance, are milder cannabinoids found in hemp cannabis. But research on them is very preliminary, and some states have already taken moves to ban them.Researchers hope that fewer restrictions will allow them to bring science on marijuana up to speed with the way people are actually using it.And it should give us all a much better idea of THC’s specific medical benefits—and how to find more applications for its use.

April 18, 20255 min readLifesaving Alzheimer’s Research Delayed by Trump Funding CutsThe Trump administration is freezing, delaying and revoking funding for dementia research, setting back discoveries of potential future treatmentsBy Allison Parshall edited by Jeanna Bryner Flavio Coelho/Getty ImagesOn Monday, March 24, Charles DeCarli received an order from the federal government to stop work on his nationwide study of dementia. As the director of the University of California, Davis’s federally funded Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, DeCarli studies the vascular risk factors, such as diabetes and hypertension, that contribute to 15 to 25 percent of dementia cases. These factors are poorly understood, and there is no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment to target them.DeCarli had been anxious for weeks as the Trump administration threatened to cut funding for research it considered to be related to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion). “This study has the word ‘diverse’ in its title, and so I was a little bit concerned that maybe I was going to be a target,” DeCarli says. Vascular risk factors of dementia affect certain groups, such as Black and Hispanic or Latino Americans, more than others. The study’s researchers, located at 28 sites across the U.S., were working against a ticking clock to enroll most of their participants by September.Then the National Institutes of Health told them their nearly $36-million grant, awarded during the first Trump administration, had been terminated: the work “no longer effectuates agency priorities” because of its basis in “artificial and non-scientific categories,” the letter read. The team immediately scrambled to determine what to do with the hundreds of thousands of blood samples awaiting analysis and to notify participants that their appointments had been canceled.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.After weeks of turmoil, the NIH granted an appeal from DeCarli and reinstated the project’s funding last Friday. “The analogy would be something like: You had a fire in your store. It didn’t destroy the store, but now you have to take inventory, order new supplies, repaint the inside ... and hope your clients come back,” he says. Right now DeCarli fears the team won’t meet its enrollment targets and will have to reevaluate the study.The case illustrates the cascading effects on scientific advances of even a temporary funding termination, delay or freeze. These disruptions are happening at Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) across the country. Of the 35 NIH-funded centers, 14 reportedly hang in limbo because their funding is due to expire on April 30 but hasn’t been renewed. These 14 centers include some that maintain banks of brains that were donated to science by people who suffered from dementia upon their death. As part of its sweeping cuts targeted at Columbia University, the Trump administration has reportedly revoked $3 million in grants to the university’s own ADRC, which studies the causes of Alzheimer’s disease.Scientific American spoke with DeCarli about the effect that these funding disruptions will have on our understanding of dementia’s causes and the development of new treatments.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]What’s the prognosis on your study now that your funding has been reinstated?Now I am in the mode to save the study—that’s the simplest way to say it—because it’s difficult to tell 1,700 people, “The study has been canceled,” and then [say], “Come back; it didn't happen.” We may not meet our recruitment goals—in fact, I would go as far as to say we’re unlikely to be able to meet our recruitment goals. Then we have to reevaluate the science side of things—because if we don’t get to our goal, then we don’t get the longitudinal effect [the measurement of change over time in participants’ health], so then we don’t get to see the changes that we had expected. So we get less return on the investment. It’s a challenge. We’ll make do with whatever we have.But this has a ripple effect that’s going to last much longer than just this event. This sends fear into people who are working on this study and others.What’s happening at the other Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers?All the centers get reviewed in a staggered three-year cycle. We’re in the midst of one of those three-year cycles [for more than a dozen of the 35 research centers]. The reviews are completed, but no actions have been taken [by the NIH to renew the funding]. So there are centers whose funding, technically, is going to end [on April 30], and yet they don’t know their status.AndHow would you say that this uncertainty will affect the work scientists are doing to figure out the causes of dementia and to find new treatments?It can affect this work in a number of different ways. First off, certain research projects may never come to fruition. They get disrupted, they’re not able to get back on track, and that work doesn’t get done. Second, our participants lose trust in what we’re doing because we’re not able to continue what we’re doing in a reliable manner.Third, the future researchers, who [will one day] do their own independent research..., may not make it. They’re the ones who bring the new ideas and innovations. You know, an old man like me is not going to come up with great, brilliant new ideas. The real novel stuff comes from the young people. [For Alzheimer’s disease especially], we need to be looking in other directions.It also harms the unity when certain universities are selected for criticism and blanket funding cuts, such as Columbia, [the University of Pennsylvania], Harvard [University], Yale [University]—these all have ADRCs. We have a network that accomplishes greater things together than the individual centers could ever possibly accomplish. But like in any network—like the brain—if the nodes break, it potentially harms the whole network.How would this harm to the network translate to the lives of people? For example—dementia runs in my family, and I feel like there is a ticking clock for many of my loved ones. Will this affect us?Disruptions delay discovery. We would hate to have people succumb to an illness that could have been treated or prevented, had the research continued. I take the cancer analogy: great progress has been made in 10 years with some diseases that killed hundreds of thousands of people before. Well, it’s the same thing. Dementia is killing hundreds of thousands of people. We would like to prevent that from happening, but the more barriers that are put up, the longer it’s going to take us to get there. We may still get there. But five, 10, 20 years could go by.It certainly will delay innovation and creativity. You know, creativity blossoms in a healthy environment. If I’m feeling under attack, I know what I do—I retreat to what I know best.But one of the things I remain hopeful about is that we may begin to understand the multitude of biological pathways that lead to dementia—and not just [those that are] focused on Alzheimer’s pathology. The more we understand and expand [our understanding of dementia in all of its forms], the better we’re going to understand how the brain works and how to keep the brain healthy. In the end, it’s helping people stay alive, right? Our vision statement for our ADRC is “a lifetime of brain health for all.”I don’t know that I’ll live to the time that this happens, but the ultimate goal is to identify what it is that keeps our brain healthy throughout our lifespan and alleviate dementia by understanding these mechanisms and by developing precise methods to overcome them.

April 18, 20253 min readAmerica’s ‘Golden Era’ of Oil Is Already Losing Its GlitterLiberty Energy, founded by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, reports falling profits, and the industry cites tariffs as a driverBy Benjamin Storrow & E&E News Anton Petrus/Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | The oil company founded by Energy Secretary Chris Wright reported falling profits Thursday, warning investors that the oil industry faces "storm clouds on the horizon" amid President Donald Trump's tariff blitz.Liberty Energy is a barometer of the health of America's oil patch. The Denver-based company provides fracking services to oil and gas companies, and it is of growing importance today — as the company was founded by Wright and is one of the first oil firms to report its first quarter earnings amid the president's push to impose tariffs on a broad-range of imported goods."As we look forward, of course, there are some storm clouds on the horizon," Liberty CEO Ron Gusek told financial analysts. "We don't know if that storm is going to roll in here or not."On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Liberty executives sought to put a good face on the moment. They noted the oil and gas industry is a cyclical business and that drillers are in better shape to withstand a downturn than in previous years. They predicted drilling activity would pick up in the second quarter, as winter turned to spring. And they expressed hope that Trump's decision to pause a wide range of tariffs had relieved pressure on the global economy.But the tone was a far cry from the "golden era of American energy dominance" that Wright promised shortly after becoming Energy secretary earlier this year.Liberty's quarterly profit of $165 million represented its worst quarter since the first three months of 2022 and was down from almost $239 million in the same quarter last year. Liberty's stock has fallen around 40 percent since the start of year.Company executives conceded a slowdown in the oil patch could occur if oil prices continued to slide. West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark for American crude, has lost more than 20 percent from its high of around $80 a barrel in early January.The company will be closely watching its capital expenditures and share buyback as market conditions evolved, Gusek said, adding, "We will be keenly focused on a fortress like balance sheet that will enable us to navigate whatever is coming our way."The Department of Energy did not respond to a request for comment.Company executives said the gas market represented a potential bright spot, with liquefied natural gas exports supporting demand. Falling associated gas production from wells that are primarily drilled for oil could support pure-play natural gas operations, they said.The oil and gas industry threw its weight behind Trump's reelection campaign last year and many in the industry were thrilled when the president selected Wright to lead DOE. In his first secretarial order, Wright promised to unleash a "golden age" for energy development, rolling back regulations, boosting LNG exports, focusing on research and development and refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.Discontent with Trump has been rising in the oil patch. In a quarterly survey conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, oil and gas executives expressed dismay with the president's tariff onslaught, saying it threatened to raise costs while putting a damper on economic growth needed to support oil demand.This story also appears in Energywire.Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

April 18, 20254 min readPlant Leaves Absorb Microplastics—And They End Up in Our FoodNew evidence shows plant leaves absorb airborne microplastics, a previously overlooked route for the particles to enter crops that has implications for ecology and human healthBy Willie Peijnenburg & Nature magazine Plants can absorb plastic particles directly from the air. Ruben Bonilla Gonzalo/Getty ImagesPlastic production is increasing sharply. This has raised concerns about the effects of microplastics (typically defined as plastic particles smaller than 5 millimetres in diameter) and nanoplastics (smaller plastic particles that are less than 1,000 nanometres in diameter) on human health. These concerns are partly influenced by alarming findings of the presence of microplastics in various human tissues, including the brain and placenta. Continuing research is examining pathways of human exposure to microplastics, including through food sources. Most attention is focused on soil and water as common sources of plastics that enter the food chain. However, writing in Nature, Li et al. provide strong evidence supporting the air as being a major route for plastics to enter plants.Plants can absorb plastic particles directly from the air. Particles in the air can enter leaves through various pathways, such as through structures on the leaf surface called the stomata and through the cuticle. Stomata are small openings made of cells, and the cuticle is a membrane, covered in insoluble wax, that is well suited for absorbing microplastics.Once inside the leaf (Fig. 1), microplastics move through spaces between plant cells and can also accumulate inside tiny hair-like structures, called trichomes, on the surface of leaves. Microplastics can also travel to and enter the plant’s water- and nutrient-transporting system (called the vascular bundle) and from there reach other tissues. Trichomes are ‘sinks’ for external particles and they therefore reduce the efficiency of microplastic transport from leaves to roots. Given that leaves are a key part of the food chain, microplastic particles that accumulate here can easily pass to herbivores and crop leaves, both of which can be directly consumed by humans.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Microplastics can also travel to and enter the plant’s water- and nutrient-transporting system (called the vascular bundle). From there, microplastics can reach other tissues.Yuji Sakai/Getty ImagesLi and colleagues’ study demonstrates that the absorption and accumulation of atmospheric microplastics by plant leaves occurs widely in the environment, with the concentrations of these particles in plants being consistent with their concentrations in air at the sampling sites. The authors report that the concentrations of the microplastics polyethylene terephthalate and polystyrene were 10–100 times higher in open-air planted vegetables than in greenhouse-grown vegetables. Leaves with a longer growth duration and the outer leaves of vegetables contained higher microplastic concentrations than did younger leaves and inner leaves. Microplastic concentration in plants increased with the duration of exposure to these particles.Although the efficiency of leaf uptake of microplastics is extremely low (around 0.05%), Li and colleagues’ findings provide evidence from fieldwork of accumulation of atmospheric microplastics in leaves. The relative importance of this airborne exposure to microplastics in plants compared with that of other uptake routes is difficult to assess, because information available on microplastic uptake through soil and water is sparse. Li et al. report concentrations of polystyrene nanoplastics of about 7–10 nanograms per gram of the dry plant weight for lettuce leaves after outdoor exposure in Tianjin, China.In the case of exposure to microplastics in the water, plastic concentrations similar to those found in plants by Li and colleagues after airborne deposition could only be obtained previously by exposing lettuce roots to polystyrene nanoplastics in water, at exposure levels as high as 5 milligrams of plastic per litre of water. Another study examining plant exposure to microplastics in water reported that there was no plant uptake of these plastics from water entering a wastewater treatment site. In soil cultivation experiments reported by Li and colleagues, the root absorption of polystyrene nanoparticles that ended up in the shoot was less efficient than the absorption of airborne nanoplastics. Li and colleagues found that the level of the plastics that reached leaves from roots were well below the 7–10 nanograms per gram of dry plant weight that is associated with airborne deposition of nanoplastics. Li et al. report that levels of microplastics in air-exposed plants at highly microplastic-contaminated sites increased mostly tenfold compared with levels at non-contaminated sites.Researchers have found that microplastics in the air can enter plants, including crops, through the outer layer of cuticle and epidermal cells. They can then move through spaces between plant cells to enter tiny hair-like structures on the leaf surface called trichomes. Alternatively, after entering the leaf, microplastics can move to cells in a system called the vascular bundle that transports water and nutrients to tissues elsewhere in the plant.NatureThese findings illustrate the potential implications of airborne microplastics and nanoplastics accumulating in leaves and being transferred to herbivores and humans. This highlights a possible yet understudied pathway of plastic exposure that might have ecological and health implications. However, key gaps remain in scientists’ understanding of the various factors that influence the uptake, accumulation and biological effects of microplastics in humans. These knowledge gaps include: the composition of the average human diet and its role in determining exposure levels; the efficiency with which plastics accumulate in the gut; and the extent to which these particles reach key organs. Furthermore, there is a major lack of data on the threshold levels at which microplastics and nanoplastics might begin to exert harmful effects on human health.The combination of these uncertainties severely hinders efforts to accurately quantify the potential risks posed by airborne microplastics. Without a comprehensive and systematic approach to studying plastic fate and toxicity, our understanding remains incomplete. The current body of knowledge about the environmental and physiological effects of plastics is full of gaps, with no consistent data available on plastics of well-defined compositions, sizes, shapes or densities.A conclusion to draw from Li and co-authors’ work is that, although there is no widely supported consensus on the risks to humans from exposure to plastics, the deposition of these substances from the air into human food is an exposure pathway not to ignore. Combining these concerns with considerations of direct exposure of humans to airborne plastics might suffice to prompt the adoption of precautionary measures. Although research on the long-term health effects of plastics is still continuing, preliminary research suggests possible links to problems with breathing, inflammation and other adverse health outcomes. Given these uncertainties, integrating precautionary approaches — such as reducing plastic use and increasing public awareness — might help to lessen potential risks. Proactive measures might also encourage further scientific investigation into the extent of microplastic exposure and its health implications, ensuring better protection for individuals and for the environment.This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on April 9, 2025.

April 18, 20258 min readSevere Morning Sickness Is Caused by a Specific Hormone—And It Could Unlock New TreatmentsScientists discovered two genes involved in hyperemesis gravidarum, a condition that can cause extreme nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Now they're looking into treatmentsBy Tanya Lewis edited by Dean Visser PeopleImages/Getty ImagesRoughly 70 percent of pregnant people experience morning sickness: bouts of nausea or vomiting, or both, that put them off their food and send them running for the toilet. Despite its name, the miserable condition can strike at any time of day—or last all day. It usually subsides after the first trimester, though it can sometimes linger throughout an entire pregnancy.Up to 3 percent of people who are pregnant experience a severe and sometimes life-threatening form of morning sickness known as hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), which makes it extremely difficult to keep down food or liquid. This can cause severe dehydration and can sometimes lead to a hospital stay. Catherine, Princess of Wales (formerly Kate Middleton) and comedian Amy Schumer have both suffered from the condition.Marlena Fejzo, an assistant professor of population and public health sciences at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, was recently awarded the BioInnovation Institute & Science Translational Medicine Prize for Innovations in Women’s Health for her work on the genetics of HG. “We put men on the moon decades ago, but women are still dying from severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy,” Fejzo wrote in an essay accompanying the award.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Fejzo got interested in studying HG after suffering from the condition during both of her pregnancies. In collaboration with the consumer genetics company 23andMe, she conducted an analysis of people with HG that identified two genes involved: GDF15 and IGFBP7.Fejzo and her colleagues published a 2023 study in Nature that confirmed the role of the hormone GDF15—whose production is controlled by the GDF15 gene—in HG and milder morning sickness. Most people produce the GDF15 hormone in response to physiological stress, even when they’re not pregnant, but people with HG have a version of the gene that prevents this. During pregnancy, the placenta—which develops from embryonic tissue—produces GDF15 at high levels that can trigger morning sickness. People with HG are hypersensitive to GDF15, so the effects are severe.Fejzo is currently focused on investigating potential treatments for HG, including the diabetes drug metformin, as well as more targeted antibody therapies.Scientific American spoke with Fejzo about hyperemesis gravidarum, the discovery of GDF15 and progress toward treatments for the debilitating condition.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]What is hyperemesis gravidarum?It is nausea and vomiting that are debilitating. It affects your daily routine, and you can’t eat or drink normally, and patients become dehydrated, so they generally will have weight loss and need to have IV fluids for dehydration and electrolyte imbalances—and they will, in more severe cases, need hospitalization and nutrition. Most cases need intervention with antinausea medications that currently don’t work very well and are pretty much used off-label to treat the condition [meaning such drugs are generally not officially approved for such treatment].It is the primary cause of hospitalization in early pregnancy and the second leading cause of hospitalization in pregnancy overall after preterm birth (tied with gestational hypertension). For it to be so common, it’s really shocking how little is known.Marlena S. Fejzo, PhD.HER FoundationWhat interested you in studying this condition?I had already been studying women’s health as my focus in my career. And then I had hyperemesis in my pregnancy. It was so severe in my second pregnancy that I couldn’t move without violently vomiting. It really was torture. I just had to lie down and stare at the ceiling. I couldn’t get up. I couldn’t even sit up. I couldn’t get up to go to the bathroom or brush my teeth or shower or anything for weeks and weeks. My doctor gave me seven different medications at once and IV fluids, but nothing helped get me to be able to eat. Eventually, I was put on a feeding tube. And I ended up losing the baby in the second trimester.After that, I looked into what was known about the condition, and there was so little known. I decided to start looking into whether it was genetic. I didn’t have it in my family, so I didn’t know. I partnered with Kimber MacGibbon, director of the Hyperemesis Education and Research [HER] Foundation, which had a great website with information on HG that people from all over the world were going to. We posted surveys on the HER Foundation website and started to look for answers to questions about HG, such as what the recurrence risk was and whether it ran in families. Those two things would provide evidence as to whether it was genetic or not.What were some of your findings about the genetic basis of HG?We found a high recurrence risk. More than 80 percent of the patients in our study had HG in a second pregnancy after the first one. Then we did a familial aggregation study and found that it did aggregate in families, so there’s a 17-fold increased risk of having it if your sister has it. We started a study to collect DNA saliva samples in addition to survey data from patients. We asked them to recruit unaffected controls—friends or acquaintances who did not have HG in their pregnancies—so that we could do a genetic study. I applied for funding to do the study on my cohort but was denied. But I was fortunate in that I got a kit for my brother from 23andMe (which just went out of business [last month]). They had a brilliant model to invite their customers whose DNA was already sequenced to participate in surveys. I called 23andMe and asked them to add hyperemesis questions to their survey, and they agreed. It was really fruitful, and we published our first paper that showed the link between both hyperemesis and normal nausea and vomiting.It showed that both hyperemesis and regular nausea and vomiting are very strongly associated with this nausea and vomiting hormone GDF15. After I published that, I was able to get my study participants sequenced by the pharmaceutical company Regeneron. And in that cohort, we found a mutation in GDF15 that increased risk of hyperemesis almost 10-fold. So that really helped to solidify the association between this hormone and hyperemesis, because it was a rare mutation that you're born with, and then you get the disease. But when I was looking at those patients with the mutation, some of them didn't have hyperemesis in every pregnancy. My hypothesis was that whether the mother would have hyperemesis depended on whether the baby inherited the mutation or not. So I started sequencing the children from these women who had the mutation, and I got the surprising result that they were less likely to have hyperemesis if the baby inherited the mutation.So even though some people have the gene that prevents production of GDF15 before pregnancy, if their baby’s placenta doesn’t produce it either, the pregnant person wouldn’t experience HG symptoms?Exactly. That’s why, even though the mothers had lower levels of GDF15 before pregnancy that made them hypersensitive to the hormone, they would have less chance of getting hyperemesis—because they had lower levels during pregnancy if the baby inherited the gene.At that time, I partnered with Steven O’Rahilly, an endocrinologist at the University of Cambridge, and we worked together to solve this really perplexing finding. The three genetic variants I had identified were actually associated with producing lower levels of the nausea and vomiting hormone rather than higher levels, which was surprising—but then also exciting because it meant that maybe there was desensitization going on in people who had higher levels, and that could be protective. In our Nature paper, we proved that is likely the case, both in a mouse model that O’Rahilly did and also with evidence from humans. It’s long been known, for example, that chronic smokers have a lower risk of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and hyperemesis. It’s also known that chronic smokers have high levels of circulating GDF15 because it is actually a stress-response hormone. It’s produced whether you’re pregnant or not, and whether you're male or female, from cells or in tissues that are under stress. That’s not to say people should start smoking before pregnancy! We’re looking into other methods that might be safer.Is there any evolutionary reason for why we have more GDF15 in our body during pregnancy?Back in ancient times, millions of years ago, even hundreds of years ago, going out to hunt for food was fraught with risk. So I think this evolved as a mechanism, when you are in some kind of sensitive state, to stop you from going out to eat, to stay in your cave, rest and recover or to get through that first part of pregnancy—rather than wandering far and going out to get foods where you could be attacked by a predator in a weakened state or you could, in pregnancy, eat something poisonous.I always use the example of the octopus that lays its eggs and then starves to death and dies. And the other gene that I found, IGFBP7, is the same gene that gets [dialed up] in that octopus. It's like an age-old mechanism where, in the case of the octopus, it’s clearly evolutionary beneficial for the mother to die in order to save the eggs. It’s an extreme example, but it still goes on in nature. But some animals, and I think humans, just don’t need it anymore. And I think it also wears off at a time when the nutritional needs of the fetus outweigh the risk to the fetus from not eating.Is it true that morning sickness symptoms are associated with a lower risk of miscarriage? And does that suggest the ability to produce GDF15 is a good thing?I think it’s just showing that the pregnancy is progressing. The placenta produces GDF15, so the more cells you have of the placenta, the more GDF15 you’re going to produce, right? So in those studies where they show that morning sickness is good, it’s more that no morning sickness may mean that your placenta and the fetus are not growing, and so you’re more likely to lose the baby.There are actually human knockouts [people who lack the gene entirely] out there. There is a population of people who married their first cousins, in which both partners carry the mutation, and then their offspring have the knockout of the hormone. And they’re fine. They have a normal lifespan and normal fertility. That suggests that we really don’t need this hormone anymore.Has there been any progress on treatments for HG? I believe you’ve studied the diabetes drug metformin?I haven’t published it yet, but I have done a retrospective study of metformin use prior to pregnancy and risk of hyperemesis, and that showed positive results. Metformin increases GDF15 levels. It’s also been used, for example, to increase fertility in polycystic ovarian syndrome patients. So it’s been used in the same time frame we would want to use it in people who have a history of hyperemesis: prior to pregnancy. It’s also used to treat gestational diabetes, so there’s quite a lot of evidence out there on its safety, though more study is needed to understand the potential effects on fetal growth. And it’s also available in generic form, so that’s also great, as far as it being an equitable approach.I just initiated a prospective study of metformin in patients. I don’t have the results of that yet. The company [NGM Biopharmaceuticals], which I have been working with, just announced that they treated their first patient with a drug that is an antibody to the receptor for GDF15. And they’ve initiated a clinical trial, too. We are on the cusp of finding out whether these approaches are going to work. So it’s an exciting time.

April 18, 20256 min readNASA’s Next Major Space Telescope Is Ready to Launch. Trump Wants to Kill It and Other Vital ScienceAmid harsh cuts, the Trump administration has proposed canceling the nearly ready-to-launch Nancy Grace Roman Space TelescopeBy Nadia Drake edited by Dan VerganoThe Nancy Grace Roman Telescope is designed to observe hundreds of millions of galaxies and thousands of supernovas to investigate dark energy and the universe's accelerated expansion. GSFC/SVSTechnicians at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center are nearing the finish line on the space agency’s newest flagship astrophysics mission. Called the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the eagerly awaited $3.5-billion observatory could solve the secrets of the dark universe, spot untold undiscovered worlds and light the way toward finding alien life. It only awaits final integration and testing, a short hop down to Cape Canaveral, Fla., and a longer journey to a sun-circling orbit near the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). In a triumph for NASA, reliable sources say that Roman could launch as early as the fall of 2026, well ahead of its May 2027 target and potentially under budget.But a leaked draft of the president’s 2026 budget request, which Scientific American has reviewed, instead calls for canceling Roman.“This is nuts. You’ve built it, and you’re not going to do the final step to finish it?” says astrophysicist David Spergel, president of the Simons Foundation and former co-chair of Roman’s science team. “That is such a waste of taxpayers’ money.”On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Roman isn’t the only casualty in the president’s draft NASA budget, which is still in flux and will ultimately require congressional approval. The proposal cuts heavily into the $25-billion space agency’s science division, home to missions that include JWST, the twin Voyager probes, the Hubble Space Telescope and a fleet of Mars rovers that have colored in our understanding of the cosmos and captured imaginations worldwide for half a century.The draft budget includes an almost 50 percent cut to heliophysics, which studies the sun and space weather, reducing it to $455 million; a more than 50 percent reduction in Earth science funding, which includes climate monitoring, taking it down to roughly $1 billion; and a 30 percent cut to planetary science and solar system exploration, resulting in $1.9 billion. The last cut kills the upcoming DAVINCI (Deep Atmosphere Venus Investigation of Noble gases, Chemistry, and Imaging) mission to Venus and NASA’s beleaguered mission to bring rocks back from Mars. Notably, the document also cleaves off two thirds of the funding for NASA’s astrophysics division, which studies stars, galaxies and cosmology, dropping it to $487 million and specifying that “no funding is provided” for telescopes other than JWST and Hubble.Space policy observers expressed dismay at the budget cuts, particularly at the notion of throwing away a flagship space telescope. “This is a wholly unserious budget proposal,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the ranking member of the spending committee for NASA, in a recent statement.Privately, space policy experts have been even less charitable about the proposal: “It sets back a program that is clearly the leading program in the world—in a historic fashion,” says a former government official, speaking to Scientific American on condition of anonymity because of concerns about retaliation. “You take that program and shoot it through the head.”NASA has refrained from saying much publicly. A spokesperson for the agency has only issued a statement that it has the draft “and has begun the deliberative process.” (The White House has not responded to requests for comment.) The agency received the draft on April 10, one day after Jared Isaacman, President Donald Trump’s nominee for NASA administrator, insisted in his nomination hearing that the U.S. could send humans to the moon and Mars and “do all the other things” with NASA’s current budget. “I do believe the president is looking to usher in the golden age of science and discovery,” Isaacman said. Now observers suggest that instead of ushering in that golden age, the Trump administration simply seems to be trading in the entire universe.“If you want to take the most successful fleet of missions ever built, and the leadership that accompanies that fleet, and throw that all away, this is the budget to do it,” says another senior space scientist, speaking anonymously because of concerns about budgetary retribution from the Trump administration. “This budget is like, ‘Here is a shit sandwich with no side of pickle.’ You don’t even get the plate!”“It’s like 200 Hubbles”This isn’t the first time Trump’s White House has tried to zero out Roman—it’s the fourth. But in each previous instance Congress kept the program alive. Observers are hopeful that lawmakers will again rescue the telescope because space science has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support.In 2020 NASA named the project, which until then had been called the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), after Nancy Grace Roman, an astronomer who played a pivotal role in developing Hubble. The Roman telescope has been ranked as a top priority in astrophysics since a National Academy of Sciences review in 2010—a status that was only bolstered two years later, when the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which builds and operates spy satellites, donated two large, unused mirrors and associated optics to the mission.American astronomer Nancy Grace Roman at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland in the early 1970sNASA/Interim Archives/Getty ImagesDesigned to survey our own planet, the NRO’s 2.4-meter-wide mirrors match Hubble’s in size. But they have a shorter focal length that makes them better suited for doing wide-field imaging surveys that monitor millions of stars and take broad looks at exploding stars, early galaxies and large-scale cosmological structures. “Every Hubble image you see—make it 100 times bigger,” Spergel says. “It’s like 200 Hubbles. We will survey the entire sky, with Hubble-quality images.”The project was initially overbudget, but after a hefty course correction, the team is on track to deliver Roman ahead of its planned 2027 launch—and, if so, below cost. That comes on the heels of repeated criticism from federal and congressional watchdogs over price tags and schedule overruns for large space agency missions in the past two decades.“The team should be given an award, not beat up!” says the former government official. “This is what we want. This is exactly what we want to achieve.”Riddles in the DarkLike JWST, Roman sees the universe in infrared light—which means that it can spot very old, very faraway objects whose light has stretched into longer, redder infrared wavelengths as it has traversed the expanse. One of the mission’s primary scientific goals is to gather the multitude of observations we need to understand dark energy, the mysterious force that is causing the universe to balloon outward.“Roman has the sensitivity we need to understand what’s going on with the 70 percent of the universe that we don’t understand, which is dark energy,” Spergel says.Crucially, recent results from other surveys suggest that this still mysterious dark energy, whose force is seemingly pushing galaxies apart at an accelerating rate, might surprisingly weaken over time. And Roman is designed to be complementary to the European Space Agency’s Euclid telescope, which makes similar observations at visible wavelengths, and the U.S.’s powerful, ground-based Vera C. Rubin Observatory, which is coming online later this year in Chile. “These are not missions that do the same thing,” says Henk Hoekstra, an astronomer at Leiden University in the Netherlands, who studies dark energy. “We have this strange universe—would you trust a single result and build our whole understanding of the universe on just this one measurement?” Another Roman instrument—a starlight-blocking coronagraph—is a key prototype for NASA’s next major astrophysics flagship mission, the Habitable Worlds Observatory. That space telescope will look for signs of life in the atmospheres of faraway, habitable planets. Zeroing out Roman would mean losing all the information we’d get from that tech demo. And observers say the cut would also erode current and future astrophysics. Plus, pulling the plug on Roman would not only erode expertise; it would also damage international collaborations. For those to work, Hoekstra says, international partners need to trust that “people can’t just suddenly turn off the tap and say, ‘We’re not going to do this.’”Many of the budget’s proposed cancellations do exactly that.“Why do we even plan on doing great things if, on a whim, we can just decide ‘nah’?” the senior space scientist says. “These things take a generation to build and enable multiple generations of scientists. They should not be blithely thrown away.”

April 17, 20254 min readIs Dimethyl Sulfide Really a Sign of Alien Life?Dimethyl sulfide is in the news after NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope may have detected relatively high levels of it in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18 bBy Meghan Bartels edited by Dean VisserAn artist’s depiction of exoplanet K2-18 b. NASA, ESA, CSA, Joseph Olmsted (STScI)Scientists and extraterrestrial enthusiasts are abuzz after a team of researchers studying the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18 b with NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) just announced that they detected high levels of either the chemical dimethyl sulfide or a very similar compound—billing it as a hint of alien life. Although most people have never heard of dimethyl sulfide, it’s all around us here on Earth. But what is this compound, and is it really a sign of life beyond Earth?What Is Dimethyl Sulfide?In chemical terms, dimethyl sulfide comprises one atom of sulfur bonded to two methyl groups, each of which contains one carbon atom and three hydrogen atoms. The result is a small molecule with an outsize ability to offend the human nose. “Any of these sulfur things are going to be super stinky—that garlic, rotten egg smell,” says Eleanor Browne, a chemist at the University of Colorado Boulder.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Earth’s dimethyl sulfide is constantly being produced by tiny plankton in the oceans. From there, it rises into the atmosphere, where it makes up about one out of every billion molecules. Once aloft, each individual molecule of dimethyl sulfide lasts only hours or, at most, about a day before it is destroyed in reactions that are triggered by exposure to sunlight and various atmospheric compounds.That process is scientifically important here on the surface, Browne says, because those reactions eventually create tiny particles called aerosols that seed clouds, making dimethyl sulfide an important compound to understand for climate models and other atmospheric science.From Earth to K2-18 bBecause microbes produce all of the detectable dimethyl sulfide in Earth’s atmosphere, and because it breaks down so quickly, scientists have long held that the compound could be a so-called biosignature—a fingerprint of life that is detectable from a distance—on other planets far from our own. “On Earth, it’s considered really a clean, unambiguous biosignature,” says Nora Hänni, a chemist at the University of Bern in Switzerland.Enter JWST, a piece of technology with an unprecedented ability to sniff out atmospheric chemicals on planets that pass between their stars and the telescope. Scientists arranged for JWST to study K2-18 b, which had been discovered orbiting a small, cool star about 124 light-years from Earth in 2015. The exoplanet’s size appears to be between that of Earth and Neptune and belongs to a range that scientists have never seen up close.In 2023 researchers led by Nikku Madhusudhan, an astrophysicist at the University of Cambridge, announced the first signs of dimethyl sulfide in K2-18 b’s atmosphere. At that time, other scientists were unable to corroborate the detection. But on Wednesday Madhusudhan and his team announced that a second JWST instrument had detected either the compound or a similar potential biosignature, dimethyl disulfide, with more confidence than the previous observations and at much higher levels than those in Earth’s atmosphere. The new results were published on April 17 in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.“You need thousands of times of Earth’s concentrations to be able to explain the data,” he said during a presentation broadcast on YouTube on April 17.Taking the “Bio” Out of Biosignature?From the new JWST observations—and the calculation that K2-18 b lies at a distance from its star that could permit liquid water to remain on its surface—Madhusudhan concluded that the most logical explanation is that the planet is covered in an ocean of warm water that is “teeming with life,” he said during the presentation on Thursday.But both Hänni and Browne conducted recent research that showed it would be a stretch to rely on dimethyl sulfide as a conclusive sign of life. Browne and her colleagues produced it and similar compounds in a laboratory simulation of Earth’s early atmosphere—without including living organisms. Hänni and her team detected the molecule on a frozen comet called 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, which the European Space Agency explored up close with its Rosetta mission.Both researchers emphasize that scientists don’t know nearly enough about K2-18 b to determine whether any dimethyl sulfide found in its atmosphere was produced by living organisms—or by abiotic happenstance of the kind that led to their own observations. Researchers don’t even know whether the compound would disappear as rapidly as it does in Earth’s nitrogen-rich atmosphere, given that the alien world’s atmosphere is dominated by carbon dioxide instead.“Chemistry and the planets and all of those processes are so diverse,” Browne says. “There’s always going to be a way to make something abiotically.”And if life is producing the dimethyl sulfide, that same life should be producing other compounds as well, says Chris Lintott, an astronomer at the University of Oxford. “[Dimethyl sulfide] should exist in a chemical network. If it’s produced by biology, it should break down, and the raw materials—such as H2S [hydrogen sulfide]—used to make it should be visible in the spectrum, too. They aren’t.”Overall, he argues that local context will always determine what makes something a biosignature. “Looking for what’s biological on Earth isn’t a good guide to what might be biological elsewhere,” he says.