Geralt, the hero of The Witcher series of games, nearly had a considerably different face. He actually did, briefly, but the game's community disliked it so much CD Projekt Red panicked and changed it back. The problem? Anatomical correctness. The community didn't think Geralt was alien-looking or ugly enough. The year was 2010 and CD Projekt Red was ready to debut its brand new Witcher game, The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings, to the world. A couple of leaked videos preceded the formal announcement but when a clutch of screenshots was eventually released, it debuted a different looking Geralt to the one people were used to from The Witcher 1. Whereas Geralt had previously had the proportions of a triangle, roughly, which angled to a point on his nose and didn't seem to involve a chin of any kind, he now had much easier-on-the-eye proportions and looked like an actual person. He was even, dare I say it, handsome. It simply wouldn't do. Some of this was to be expected. The transition from Witcher 1 to Witcher 2 included a transition for the game's engine, moving from BioWare's Aurora engine, which once powered Neverwinter Nights, to CD Projekt Red's internally made engine Redengine. A facial design that worked well in one engine wouldn't necessarily work in both. Geralt fights a baddie in The Witcher 1. | Image credit: CD Projekt Red "The problem was that The Witcher 1 was heavily stylised," CD Projekt Red art director Pawel Mielniczuk explained to me. "From an art point of view, it was a much simpler visual fidelity than was in The Witcher 2 and Witcher 3. It was based on this Aurora engine from Neverwinter Nights - low poly, you know - so the character looks great there but the face of Geralt in The Witcher 1 wasn't very anatomically correct. It was making a good impression. "When we got to The Witcher 2, we had a better engine - larger budgets for polygons, more artists to sculpt nice faces, and we actually got better at making characters, already being a studio that released one game. And Geralt's [existing] face just did not match the style of the rest of the characters," he said. "It was not realistic human proportions." The solution was clear: redesign Geralt's face. "Let's make Geralt from scratch - nobody will notice that," Mielniczuk said, and laughed at the memory. "So we made it at the very beginning of The Witcher 2 production and we released it with this first bunch of screenshots to see what the response was, and the response was horrible! Our community just smashed us on the forums - there were almost riots there." Geralt's redesigned face, unveiled in the debut screenshots released for The Witcher 2. | Image credit: CD Projekt Red Sadly I can't find those riots on those company forums now; 15 years of chatter has buried it. But Mielniczuk told me the comments there were to the effect of: "True Geralt: he's supposed to be ugly and inhuman!" CD Projekt Red backtracked as a result of the backlash, and it would take a further two years of tinkering, and testing and re-evaluating, to get Geralt's look right for the game. "And was a hybrid of The Witcher 1 Geralt and a real human," Mielniczuk said. By the time The Witcher 3 development came around, in around 2011-2012, the opportunity once again presented itself to tinker with Geralt's face, but this time the studio resisted. "With The Witcher 3, we actually used exactly the same model from Witcher 2, added more polygons, updated textures, but we did not touch it," Mielniczuk said. Geralt as pictured at the beginning of The Witcher 2. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red That's not to say Mielniczuk didn't want to alter Geralt's face for the third game. He was the lead character artist on The Witcher 3. He hand-sculpted both Ciri and Yennefer's face, and he could see glaring issues with Geralt's. "If you look at the profile of Geralt: he has this incredible profile but the tip of his nose is a completely straight line from his forehead, kind of Greek proportions, and it was not fitting his face, so we wanted to fix that. But we did not," he said. "We made a decision, 'Okay, that's Geralt, he's recognisable, people are loving our character. We pass. We cannot make this mistake once again.'" Which brings us around to The Witcher 4, which is now in full production and we know will include Geralt to some degree. The new game will also move the series to a new engine, Unreal Engine 5, so once again there's an opportunity for a Geralt-face redesign. Will CD Projekt Red take it? Even the box art changed quite considerably over the course of the game's development. | Image credit: CD Projekt Red "It's such a grounded character right now I would really not dare to touch it," Mielniczuk said. "And in general, it's a very successful character because his face is recognisable, probably also because of these features of inhuman proportions in the upper part of the body. So no, I wouldn't update anything, just textures, normal maps, adding more details on the face, make it realistic through the surfaces, but not through the anatomy and proportions." But there is one thing that might tempt Mielniczuk to update Geralt's face, or rather one person, and that's Henry Cavill, the former star of The Witcher Netflix TV show. Mielniczuk is a big fan of his. "Henry was just perfect," he said. Then he added, laughing: "If I would do something to the face, I would be easily convinced to scan Henry and put him in The Witcher 4!" I spoke to Pawel Mielniczuk as part of a series of interviews looking back on The Witcher 3, a decade on, through the eyes of the people who made it. You can find that full piece on Eurogamer now.

Maksim Kabakou - Fotolia Opinion Rethinking secure comms: Are encrypted platforms still enough? A leak of information on American military operations caused a major political incident in March 2025. The Security Think Tank considers what can CISOs can learn from this potentially fatal error. By Russell Auld, PAC Published: 30 May 2025 In today’s constantly changing cyber landscape, answering the question “what does best practice now look like?” is far from simple. While emerging technologies and AI-driven security tools continue to make the headlines and become the topics of discussion, the real pivot point for modern security lies not just in the technological advancements but in context, people and process.  The recent Signal messaging platform incident in which a journalist was mistakenly added to a group chat, exposing sensitive information, serves as a timely reminder that even the most secure platform is vulnerable to human error. The platform wasn’t breached by malicious actors, or a zero-day exploit being utilised or the end-to-end encryption failing; the shortfall here was likely poorly defined acceptable use polices and controls alongside a lack of training and awareness. This incident, if nothing else, highlights a critical truth within cyber security – security tools are only as good as the environment, policies, and people operating them. While it’s tempting to focus on implementing more technical controls to prevent this from happening again, the reality is that many incidents result from a failure of process, governance, or awareness.  What does good security look like today? Some key areas include: Context over features, for example, whether Signal should have been used in the first place; There is no such thing as a silver bullet approach to protect your organisation; The importance of your team’s training and education; Reviewing and adapting continuously.  Security must be context-driven. Business leaders need to consider what their key area of concern is – reputational risk, state-sponsored surveillance, insider threats, or regulatory compliance. Each threat vector requires a different set of controls. For example, an organisation handling official-sensitive or classified data will require not just encryption, but assured platforms, robust access controls, identity validation, and clear auditability. Conversely, a commercial enterprise concerned about intellectual property leakage might strategically focus on user training, data loss prevention, and device control. Best practice isn’t picking the platform with the cheapest price tag or the most commonly used; it’s selecting a platform that supports the controls and policies required based on a deep understanding of your specific risks and use cases.   There is no one-size-fits-all solution for your organisation. The security product landscape is filled with vendors offering overlapping solutions that all claim to provide more protection than the other. And, although we know some potentially do offer better protection, features or functionality, even the best tool will fail if used incorrectly or implemented without a clear understanding of its limitations. Worse, organisations may gain a false sense of security by relying solely on a supplier’s claims. The priority must be to assess your organisation’s internal capability to manage and operate these tools effectively. Reassessing the threat landscape and taking advantage of the wealth of threat intelligence tools available, helps ensure you have the right skills, policies, and processes in place.  The Computer Weekly Security Think Tank on Signalgate Todd Thiemann, ESG: Signalgate: Learnings for CISOs securing enterprise data. Javvad Malik, KnowBe4: What CISOs can learn from Signalgate. Aditya Sood, Aryaka: Unspoken risk: Human factors undermine trusted platforms. Raihan Islam, defineXTEND: When leaders ignore cyber security rules, the whole system weakens. Elliot Wilkes, ACDS: Security vs. usability: Why rogue corporate comms are still an issue. Mike Gillespie and Ellie Hurst, Advent IM: Signalgate is a signal to revisit security onboarding and training. Best practice in 2025 means recognising that many security incidents stem from simple human mistakes, misaddressed emails, poor password hygiene, or even sharing access with the wrong person. Investing in continual staff education, security awareness, and skills gap analysis is essential to risk reduction.   This doesn’t mean showing an annual 10-minute cyber awareness video; you need to identify what will motivate your people and run security campaigns that capture their attention and change behaviour. For example you could consider using engaging nudges such as mandatory phishing alerts on laptops, interactive lock screen campaigns, and quizzes on key policies such as acceptable use and password complexity. Incorporate gamification elements, for example rewards for completing quizzes, and timely reminders to reinforce security best practices and fostering a culture of vigilance.  These campaigns should be a mixture of communications that engage people coupled with training which is seen as relevant by the workforce, as well as meeting role specific needs. Your developers need to understand secure coding practices, while those in front line operations may need training in how to detect phishing or social engineering attacks. In doing so this helps to create a better security culture within the organisation and enhance your overall security posture.  Finally, what’s considered “best practice” today may be outdated by tomorrow. Threats are constantly evolving, regulations change, and your own business operations and strategy may shift. Adopting a cyber security lifecycle that encompasses people, process and technology, supported by business continuous improvement activities and a clear vision from senior stakeholders will be vital. Conducting regular security reviews, red-teaming, and reassessing governance and policies will help ensure that defences remain relevant and proportional to your organisation’s threats. Encryption, however, still matters. As do SSO, MFA, secure coding practises, and access controls. But the real cornerstone of best practice in today’s cyber world is understanding why you need them, and how they’ll be used in practice. Securing your organisation is no longer just about picking the best platform, it's about creating a holistic view that incorporates people, process, and technology. And that may be the most secure approach, after all.  Russell Auld is digital trust and cyber security expert at PA Consulting In The Current Issue: UK government outlines plan to surveil migrants with eVisa data Why we must reform the Computer Misuse Act: A cyber pro speaks out Download Current Issue NTT IOWN all-photonics ‘saves Princess Miku’ from dragon – CW Developer Network FinOps Foundation lays down 2025 Framework for Cloud+ cost control – Open Source Insider View All Blogs

Source:&nbsp Shutterstock More than 40 per cent of seats on the RIBA council for the upcoming elections have no candidates – and there is zero interest in two entire regions, it has emerged A list of candidates for next month’s elections to RIBA council and for the role of vice-president membership, published earlier this month, shows six of 14 seats on the council have no candidates for the vote starting on 16 June. That includes two seats for the South and two seats for East, where ‘no valid nominations were received’ for either of the regional places on RIBA council. Meanwhile, two seats – Scotland North and Northern Ireland – will see candidates elected unopposed, due to there being no other interest in representing. No valid nominations were received for two associate member seats.Advertisement However, six candidates were named for the two student seats on the council. They are: Selen Akalin, Tamunokuro Krukrubo, Rachael Livingstone, AB Mukadam, Kavindu Narayana and Andrew Pizzey. Another four candidates are competing for two non-regional council member seats. They are: Daniel Jenkins, Laura Marr, Olga Tarasova and Rebecca Wise. The vice-president membership role has attracted eight candidates. They include Jaspal Bhogal, director of Jaspal Bhogal Associates; Sheleendra Fernando, managing director of 24/Three; Thomas Foggin, director and sustainable lead of R H Partnership Architects, and Douglas Hodgson, founding director of New-works. The other candidates are Patricia Leo, director of Studio NP; Gareth Maguire, chief architect of Studio MUA; Elliot McCall, architect at Inspire Architects; and Liam Russell, founder and chief executive officer of LRA Retinue. RIBA council has 42 members with around a third of the seats rotating every three years.Advertisement Successfully elected candidates will serve in their roles for three years, starting 1 September 2025 – the same day Weston Williamson + Partners co-founder Chris Williamson becomes RIBA president. Williamson was elected as president-elect last year with 45 per cent of the second-round vote with a total of 4,462 votes cast. However, turnout was just 9.3 per cent (compared with 12.4 per cent for Mace architect Muyiwa Oki when he was elected in 2022). Williamson told the AJ: ‘I was pleased with the applications for Membership Secretary but, yes, it’s disappointing that other positions are not contested. I think many architects are concentrating on their work right now.’ The Just Transition Lobby coalition of campaign groups, which successfully campaigned for Oki to become president in 2022 and has elected half a dozen RIBA members to council in the past two years, has not, as yet, announced any candidates at this election. The RIBA has been contacted for comment. 2025-05-30 Gino Spocchia comment and share

May 31: Dragon Boat Festival in China and Taiwan (2025); World No Tobacco Day Bessarion 455 – Petronius Maximus, the ruler of the Western Roman Empire, was stoned to death by a mob as he fled Rome ahead of the arrival of a Vandal force that sacked the city. 1223 – Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus': Mongol forces defeated a Kievan Rus' army at the Battle of the Kalka River in present-day Ukraine. 1468 – Cardinal Bessarion (pictured) announced his donation of 746 Greek and Latin codices to the Republic of Venice, forming the Biblioteca Marciana. 1935 – A magnitude-7.7 earthquake struck Balochistan in British India, now part of Pakistan, killing between 30,000 and 60,000 people. 2013 – A tornado struck Central Oklahoma, killing eight people and injuring more than 150 others. Albertino Mussato (d. 1329)Joseph Grimaldi (d. 1837)Dina Boluarte (b. 1962)Mbaye Diagne (d. 1994) More anniversaries: May 30 May 31 June 1 Archive By email List of days of the year About

A bunch of great games made with Unity dropped in May—across genres, budgets, and styles. Here’s a quick roundup of what shipped that anyone not still lost in Blue Prince should check out.IGF Awards Huge congrats to all the IGF finalists, especially the games made with Unity that dominated the awards this year — including Consume Me, which took home three wins! Fresh off their Audience Award win at the IGF Awards, The WereCleaner team joined us on stream. Check it out:Made with Unity Steam Curator Page Once again we sent out a clarion call for Unity staff to share which of your games they've been playing this past month. Be sure to see them all on our Steam Curator Page here:Working on a game in Unity? We’d love to help you spread the word. Be sure to submit your project.Without further ado, to the best of our abilities, here’s a non-exhaustive list of games made with Unity and launched in May 2025, either into early access or full release. Add to the list by sharing any that you think we missed.ActionShotgun Cop Man, DeadToast Entertainment (May 1)Deliver At All Costs, Studio Far Out Games (May 22)Pipistrello and the Cursed Yoyo, Pocket Trap (May 28)Bullet HeavenBioprototype, Emprom Game (May 19)Broventure: The Wild Co-op, Alice Games (May 15)Tower of Babel: Survivors of Chaos, NANOO (May 19 – early access)Cards, dice, and deckbuildersMonster Train 2, Shiny Shoe (May 21)Into the Restless Ruins, Ant Workshop Ltd (May 15)Casual, rhythm, and partyAmong Us 3D, Schell Games, Innersloth (May 6)Dunk Dunk, Badgerhammer Limited (May 8)Ithya: Magic Studies, BlueTurtle (May 7)Kulebra and the Souls of Limbo, Galla (May 16)Bugtopia, Nocturnal Games (May 21)Kabuto Park, Doot, Zakku (May 28)City and colony builderPreserve, Bitmap Galaxy (May 15)MEMORIAPOLIS, 5PM Studio (April 30)Darfall, SquareNite (May 8)Worshippers of Cthulhu, Crazy Goat Games (May 22)City Tales - Medieval Era, Irregular Shapes (May 22 – early access)ComedyPick Me Pick Me, Optillusion (May 28 – early access)Experimental or surrealistENA: Dream BBQ, ENA Team (March 27)FPSBloodshed, com8com1 Software (May 22)GRIMWAR, BookWyrm (May 16)Noga, Ilan Manor (May 30)HorrorLiDAR Exploration Program, KenForest (April 2)White Knuckle, KenForest (April 17 – early access)The Boba Teashop, Mike Ten (April 21)Out of Hands, Game River (April 22)Darkwater, Targon Studios (April 22 – early access)Management and automationBlacksmith Master, Untitled Studio (May 15 – early access)Liquor Store Simulator, Tovarishch Games (May 2)Animal Spa, Sinkhole Studio, Moonlab Studio (May 13)Toy Shop Simulator, PaperPixel Games (May 16)Alien Market Simulator, Silly Sloth Studios, Kheddo Entertainment (May 25 – early access)MetroidvaniaOirbo, ImaginationOverflow (February 11 – early access)SteamDolls - Order Of Chaos, The Shady Gentlemen (February 11 – early access)Narrative and mysterydespelote, Julián Cordero, Sebastian Valbuena (May 1)Duck Detective: The Ghost of Glamping, Happy Broccoli Games (May 22)Beholder: Conductor, Alawar (April 23)PlatformerPaperKlay, WhyKev (March 27)Bionic Bay, Psychoflow Studio, Mureena Oy (April 17)Once Upon A Puppet, Flatter Than Earth (April 23)PEPPERED: an existential platformer, Mostly Games (April 7)Ninja Ming, 1 Poss Studio (April 10)Seafrog, OhMyMe Games (April 15)Puzzle adventurePup Champs, Afterburn (May 19)Strings Theory, Beautiful Bee (Console release)Kathy Rain 2: Soothsayer, Clifftop Games (May 20)Poco, Whalefall (May 20)Axona, Onat Oke (May 28)Projected Dreams, Flawberry Studio (May 29)Elroy and the Aliens, Motiviti (April 2)Leila, Ubik Studios (April 7)Tempopo, Witch Beam (April 17)BOKURA: planet, ところにょり (April 24)Amerzone - The Explorer's Legacy, Microids Studio Paris (April 24)Roguelike/liteSavara, Doryah Games (May 6)Vellum, Alvios Games (May 2)Yasha: Legends of the Demon Blade, 7QUARK (May 14)An Amazing Wizard, Tiny Goblins (May 22 – early access)Garden of Witches, Team Tapas (May 23 – early access)RPGTainted Grail: The Fall of Avalon, Questline (May 23)The Monster Breeder, Fantasy Creations (May 6)Yes, Your Grace 2: Snowfall, Brave At Night (May 8)SandboxA Webbing Journey, Fire Totem Games (May 19 – early access)Islands & Trains, Akos Makovics (May 29)SimulationThe Precinct, Fallen Tree Games Ltd (May 13)Liquor Store Simulator, Tovarishch Games (May 2)Doloc Town, RedSaw Games Studio (May 7)Tales of Seikyu, ACE Entertainment (May 21 – early access)Trash Goblin, Spilt Milk Studios Ltd (May 28)Sports and drivingThe Last Golfer, Pixel Perfect Dude (May 28)Turbo Takedown, Hanging Draw (March 3)StrategyTeenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Tactical Takedown, Strange Scaffold (May 22)Tower Dominion, Parallel 45 Games (May 7)9 Kings, Sad Socket (May 23 – early access)SurvivalDino Path Trail, Void Pointer (May 9)Survival Machine, Grapes Pickers (May 7 – early access)Oppidum, EP Games® (April 25)That’s a wrap for May 2025. Want more Made with Unity and community news as it happens? Don’t forget to follow us on social media: Bluesky, X, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, or Twitch.

Let’s start with one unambiguous fact: More children are diagnosed with autism today than in the early 1990s. According to a sweeping 2000 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a range of 2–7 per 1,000, or roughly 0.5 percent of US children, were diagnosed with autism in the 1990s. That figure has risen to 1 in 35 kids, or roughly 3 percent.The apparent rapid increase caught the attention of people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who assumed that something had to be changing in the environment to drive it. In 2005, Kennedy, a lawyer and environmental activist at the time, authored an infamous essay in Rolling Stone that primarily placed the blame for the increased prevalence of autism on vaccines. (The article was retracted in 2011 as more studies debunked the vaccine-autism connection.) More recently, he has theorized that a mysterious toxin introduced in the late 1980s must be responsible. Now, as the nation’s top health official leading the Department of Health and Human Services, Kennedy has declared autism an “epidemic.” And, in April, he launched a massive federal effort to find the culprit for the rise in autism rates, calling for researchers to examine a range of suspects: chemicals, molds, vaccines, and perhaps even ultrasounds given to pregnant mothers. “Genes don’t cause epidemics. You need an environmental toxin,” Kennedy said in April when announcing his department’s new autism research project. He argued that too much money had been put into genetic research — “a dead end,” in his words — and his project would be a correction to focus on environmental causes. “That’s where we’re going to find an answer.”But according to many autism scientists I spoke to for this story, Kennedy is looking in exactly the wrong place. Three takeaways from this storyExperts say the increase in US autism rates is mostly explained by the expanding definitions of the condition, as well as more awareness and more screening for it.Scientists have identified hundreds of genes that are associated with autism, building a convincing case that genetics are the most important driver of autism’s development — not, as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has argued, a single environmental toxin.Researchers fear Kennedy’s fixation on outside toxins could distract from genetic research that has facilitated the development of exciting new therapies that could help those with profound autism.Autism is a complex disorder with a range of manifestations that has long defied simple explanations, and it’s unlikely that we will ever identify a single “cause” of autism.But scientists have learned a lot in the past 50 years, including identifying some of the most important risk factors. They are not, as Kennedy suggests, out in our environment. They are written into our genetics. What appeared to be a massive increase in autism was actually a byproduct of better screening and more awareness. “The way the HHS secretary has been walking about his plans, his goals, he starts out with this basic assumption that nothing worthwhile has been done,” Helen Tager-Flusberg, a psychologist at Boston University who has worked with and studied children with autism for years, said. “Genes play a significant role. We know now that autism runs in families… There is no single underlying factor. Looking for that holy grail is not the best approach.”Doctors who treat children with autism often talk about how they wish they could provide easy answers to the families. The answers being uncovered through genetics research may not be simple per se, but they are answers supported by science.Kennedy is muddying the story, pledging to find a silver-bullet answer where likely none exists. It’s a false promise — one that could cause more anxiety and confusion for the very families Kennedy says he wants to help. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during a news conference at the Department of Health and Human Services in mid-April to discuss this agency’s efforts to determine the cause of autism. Alex Wong/Getty ImagesThe autism “epidemic” that wasn’tAutism was first described in 1911, and for many decades, researchers and clinicians confused the social challenges and language development difficulties common among those with the condition for a psychological issue. Some child therapists even blamed the condition on bad parenting. But in 1977, a study discovered that identical twins, who share all of their DNA, were much more likely to both be autistic than fraternal twins, who share no more DNA than ordinary siblings. It marked a major breakthrough in autism research, and pushed scientists to begin coalescing around a different theory: There was a biological factor.At the time, this was just a theory — scientists lacked the technology to prove those suspicions at the genetic level. And clinicians were also still trying to work out an even more fundamental question: What exactly was autism? For a long time, the criteria for diagnosing a person with autism was strictly based on speech development. But clinicians were increasingly observing children who could acquire basic language skills but still struggled with social communication — things like misunderstanding nonverbal cues or taking figurative language literally. Psychologists gradually broadened their definition of autism from a strict and narrow focus on language, culminating in a 2013 criteria that included a wide range of social and emotional symptoms with three subtypes — the autism spectrum disorder we’re familiar with today.Along the way, autism had evolved from a niche diagnosis for the severely impaired to something that encompassed far more children. It makes sense then, that as the broad criteria for autism expanded, more and more children would meet it, and autism rates would rise. That’s precisely what happened. And it means that the “epidemic” that Kennedy and other activists have been fixated on is mostly a diagnostic mirage. Historical autism data is spotty and subject to these same historical biases, but if you look at the prevalence of profound autism alone — those who need the highest levels of support — a clearer picture emerges. (There is an ongoing debate in the autism community about whether to use the terminology of “profound autism” or “high support needs” for those who have the most severe form of the condition.) In the ’80s and ’90s, low-support needs individuals would have been less likely to receive an autism diagnosis given the more restrictive criteria and less overall awareness of the disorder, meaning that people with severe autism likely represented most of the roughly 0.5 percent of children diagnosed with autism in the 1990s. (One large analysis from Atlanta examining data from 1996 found that 68 percent of kids ages 3 to 10 diagnosed with autism had an IQ below 70, the typical cutoff for intellectual disability.)By 2025, when about 3 percent of children are being diagnosed with autism, about one in four of those diagnosed are considered to have high-support needs autism, those with most severe manifestation of the condition. That would equal about 0.8 percent of all US children — which would be a fairly marginal increase from autism rates 30 years ago. Or look at it another way: In 2000, as many as 60 percent of the people being diagnosed with autism had an intellectual disability, one of the best indicators of high-support needs autism. In 2022, that percentage was less than 40 percent.As a recently published CDC report on autism prevalence among young children concluded, the increase in autism rates can largely be accounted for by stronger surveillance and more awareness among providers and parents, rather than a novel toxin or some other external factor driving an increase in cases.Other known risk factors — like more people now having babies later in their life, given that parental age is linked to a higher likelihood of autism — are more likely to be a factor than anything Kennedy is pointing at, experts say. “It’s very clear it’s not going to be one environmental toxin,” said Alison Singer, founder of the Autism Science Foundation and parent of a child with profound autism. “If there were a smoking gun, I think they would have found it.”While Kennedy has fixated on vaccines and environmental influences, scientists have gained more precision in mapping human genetics and identifying the biological mechanisms that appear to be a primary cause of autism. And that not only helps us understand why autism develops, but potentially puts long-elusive therapies within reach. It began with an accident in the 1990s. Steven Scherer, now director of the Center for Applied Genomics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, began his career in the late 1980s trying to identify the gene that caused cystic fibrosis — in collaboration with Francis Collins, who went on to lead the Human Genome Project that successfully sequenced all of the DNA in the human genome in the early 2000s. Scherer and Collins’s teams focused on chromosome 7, identified as a likely target by the primitive genetic research available at the time, a coincidence that would reorient Scherer’s career just a few years later, putting him on the trail of autism’s genetic roots.After four years, the researchers concluded that one gene within chromosome 7 caused cystic fibrosis. Soon after Scherer helped crack the code on cystic fibrosis in the mid-1990s, two parents from California called him: He was the world’s leading expert on chromosome 7, and recent tests had revealed that their children with autism had a problem within that particular chromosome.That very same week, Scherer says, he read the findings of a study by a group at Oxford University, which had looked at the chromosomes of families with two or more kids with autism. They, too, had identified problems within chromosome 7.“So I said, ‘Okay, we’re going to work on autism,’” Scherer told me. He helped coordinate a global research project, uniting his Canadian lab with the Oxford team and groups in the US to run a database that became the Autism Genome Project, still the world’s largest repository of genetic information of people with autism.They had a starting point — one chromosome — but a given chromosome contains hundreds of genes. And humans have, of course, 45 other chromosomes, any of which conceivably might play a role. So over the years, they collected DNA samples from thousands upon thousands of people with autism, sequenced their genes, and then searched for patterns. If the same gene is mutated or missing across a high percentage of autistic people, it goes on the list as potentially associated with the condition. Scientists discovered that autism has not one genetic factor, but many — further evidence that this is a condition of complex origin, in which multiple variables likely play a role in its development, rather than one caused by a single genetic error like sickle-cell anemia.Here is one way to think about how far we have come: Joseph Buxbaum, the director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, entered autism genetics research 35 years ago. He recalls scientists being hopeful that they might identify a half dozen or so genes linked to autism.They have now found 500 genes — and Buxbaum told me he believed they might find a thousand before they are through. These genetic factors continue to prove their value in predicting the onset of autism: Scherer pointed to one recent study in which the researchers identified people who all shared a mutation in the SHANK3 gene, one of the first to be associated with autism, but who were otherwise unalike: They were not related and came from different demographic backgrounds. Nevertheless, they had all been diagnosed with autism.Researchers analyze the brain activity of a 14-year-old boy with autism as part of a University of California San Francisco study that involves intensive brain imaging of kids and their parents who have a rare chromosome disruption connected to autism. The study, the Simons Variation in Individuals Project, is a genetics-first approach to studying autism spectrum and related neurodevelopmental disorders. Michael Macor/San Francisco Chronicle via The Associated PressPrecisely how much genetics contributes to the development of autism remains the subject of ongoing study. By analyzing millions of children with autism and their parents for patterns in diagnoses, multiple studies have attributed about 80 percent of a person’s risk of developing autism to their inherited genetic factors. But of course 80 percent is not 100 percent. We don’t yet have the full picture of how or why autism develops. Among identical twins, for example, studies have found that in most cases, if one twin has high-support needs autism, the other does as well, affirming the genetic effect. But there are consistently a small minority of cases — 5 and 10 percent of twin pairs, Scherer told me — in which one twin has relatively low-support needs while the one requires a a high degree of support for their autism.Kennedy is not wholly incorrect to look at environmental factors — researchers theorize that autism may be the result of a complex interaction between a person’s genetics and something they experience in utero. Scientists in autism research are exploring the possible influence when, for example, a person’s mother develops maternal diabetes, high blood sugar that persists throughout pregnancy. And yet even if these other factors do play some role, the researchers I spoke to agree that genetics is, based on what we know now, far and away the most important driver.“We need to figure out how other types of genetics and also environmental factors affect autism’s development,” Scherer said. “There could be environmental changes…involved in some people, but it’s going to be based on their genetics and the pathways that lead them to be susceptible.”While the precise contours of Health Department’s new autism research project is still taking shape, Kennedy has that researchers at the National Institutes of Health will collect data from federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and somehow use that information to identify possible environmental exposures that lead to autism. He initially pledged results by September, a timeline that, as outside experts pointed out, may be too fast to allow for a thorough and thoughtful review of the research literature. Kennedy has since backed off on that deadline, promising some initial findings in the fall but with more to come next year.RFK Jr.’s autism commission research risks the accessibility of groundbreaking autism treatmentsIf Kennedy were serious about moving autism science forward, he would be talking more about genetics, not dismissing them. That’s because genetics is where all of the exciting drug development is currently happening.A biotech firm called Jaguar Gene Therapy has received FDA approval to conduct the first clinical trial of a gene therapy for autism, focused on SHANK3. The treatment, developed in part by one of Buxbaum’s colleagues, is a one-time injection that would replace a mutated or missing SHANK3 gene with a functional one. The hope is that the therapy would improve speech and other symptoms among people with high-needs autism who have also been diagnosed with a rare chromosomal deletion disorder called Phelan-McDermid syndrome; many people with this condition also have Autism spectrum disorder.The trial will begin this year with a few infant patients, 2 years old and younger, who have been diagnosed with autism. Jaguar eventually aims to test the therapy on adults over 18 with autism in the future. Patients are supposed to start enrolling this year in the trial, which is focused on first establishing the treatment’s safety; if it proves safe, another round of trials would start to rigorously evaluate its effectiveness.“This is the stuff that three or four years ago sounded like science fiction,” Singer said. “The conversation has really changed from Is this possible? to What are the best methods to do it? And that’s based on genetics.”Researchers at Mount Sinai have also experimented with delivering lithium to patients and seeing if it improves their SHANK3 function. Other gene therapies targeting other genes are in earlier stages of development. Some investigators are experimenting with CRISPR technology, the revolutionary new platform for gene editing, to target the problematic genes that correspond to the onset of autism.But these scientists fear that their work could be slowed by Kennedy’s insistence on hunting for environmental toxins, if federal dollars are instead shifted into his new project. They are already trying to subsist amid deep budget cuts across the many funding streams that support the institutions where they work. “Now we have this massive disruption where instead of doing really key experiments, people are worrying about paying their bills and laying off their staff and things,” Scherer said. “It’s horrible.” For the families of people with high-needs autism, Kennedy’s crusade has stirred conflicting emotions. Alison Singer, the leader of the Autism Science Foundation, is also the parent of a child with profound autism. When I spoke with her, I was struck by the bind that Kennedy’s rhetoric has put people like her and her family in. Singer told me profound autism has not received enough federal support in the past, as more emphasis was placed on individuals who have low support needs included in the expanding definitions of the disorder, and so she appreciates Kennedy giving voice to those families. She believes that he is sincerely empathetic toward their predicament and their feeling that the mainstream discussion about autism has for too long ignored their experiences in favor of patients with lower support needs. But she worries that his obsession with environmental factors will stymie the research that could yield breakthroughs for people like her child.“He feels for those families and genuinely wants to help them,” Singer said. “The problem is he is a data denier. You can’t be so entrenched in your beliefs that you can’t see the data right in front of you. That’s not science.”See More:

Got a project that’s too wild for this world? Submit your conceptual works, images and ideas for global recognition and print publication in the 2025 Vision Awards, June 6th marks the end of the Main Entry period — click here to submit your work. The word “ideal” carries a subtle yet powerful trap, particularly in the context of city-making. Detached from the practicalities of construction, many architects throughout history have assumed a godlike role, crafting visionary urban proposals prioritizing perfection over feasibility. These so-called architectural utopias were often driven by the desire to radically improve how societies function, adopting the belief that reshaping physical environments could lead to social transformation. Yet, the allure of the ideal can be double-edged, often leading to designs that, albeit “perfect,” have repeatedly resulted in unintended consequences such as social exclusion, control, and isolation rather than the promised harmony. During the 20th century, a big surge of visionary utopias emerged through the practice of architecture. Of course, there were many earlier “iterations” of utopian visions, from drawings of Amaurot (Thomas More’s utopian capital) to the Cenotaph for Sir Isaac Newton by Étienne-Louis Boullée; still, the 20th century marked an astounding era of futuristic designs and technological aspirations. Perhaps the desire to explore more radical built environments and apply the modernism style to an urban scale was the driving force behind this endeavor. And yet, now nearly at the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, architectural utopianism has declined. Have architects abandoned grand ideals in favor of more practical, incremental approaches? Have they stopped dreaming big, or have these utopian models simply failed to live up to their promises? To explore the following questions, let’s first delve into some of the most famous, radical, and—according to some—failed architectural utopian projects. Brasilia Anonymous Unknown author, Brasilia aerea torredetv1304 4713, CC BY 3.0 Brasilia was designed by urbanist Lucio Costa and is filled with some of the most beautiful, sculptural and symbolic buildings by Oscar Niemeyer. Costa’s ambition was to create a progressive city that would offer a good quality of life to its residents. Following principles of orderly, rational, and systematic design, the city was conceived in four scales: the Monumental, meaning the long axes; the Gregarious, meaning the civic architecture; the Quotidian, for the residential areas; and the Bucolic, for the open space. In theory, the proposal signified an era of profound transformation. However, numerous problems arose when construction began: work camps (in the form of slumps) cropped around the city, and a massive segregation between upper and lower class occurred. Additionally, the design failed to account for pedestrian accessibility (relying heavily on cars) or consider the effects of land and urban economics. Albeit beautiful and impressive, transportation issues, urban sprawl and inequality are very real challenges modern-day Brasilia has to address, hence the label of “a cautionary tale for urban dreamers.” Radiant City Chandigarh, The theatre sector 17 by Richard Weil , via Flickr  Perhaps the most radical suggestion for the “implementation” of Radiant City was Le Corbusier’s idea to demolish historic parts of Paris. He envisioned a city organized in perfect symmetry, influenced by the parts of the human body and how they operate together efficiently. Famously, he viewed the city as a living organism — a machine for effective inhabitation. Vertical concrete towers arranged in a symmetrical grid, combined with large open spaces fit for public transportation, would offer social housing and accessibility. A business district would connect to the residential and commercial zones at the center via underground passages. Even though Radiant City was never implemented, it inspired the urban plan for Chandigarh in India, drawn by Le Corbusier in the 1950s. Still, despite its ambitious design, the city (according to some critics) “lacked Indianness.” At the same time, it very quickly outgrew its capacity, with the prominent green strip that surrounded it becoming occupied by scruffy homes and shops. Broadacre City Kjell Olsen, Wright Sketches for Broadacre City, CC BY-SA 2.0 Broadacre City was essentially Frank Lloyd Wright’s vision of an architectural and urban democratic city. Placing the individual at the center of design, the proposal ensured each inhabitant a home, a farm and a place of employment. In parallel, utilities of everyday necessity such as power, transportation, and mediums of exchange were publicly owned. Although the city was much more chaotic than the previous two examples, it was based on a genuinely democratic society where the government was strictly impersonal. Following such a free-thinking and complex design, Broadacre City was never realized. However, it fueled many of Wright’s architectural community projects and provided a framework for American city planning processes. Ideal Cities, Flawed Realities Bibliothèque Mazarine, Thomas More Utopia 1516 VTOPIAE INSVLAE FIGVRA (Bibliothèque Mazarine) Skull Version, CC BY-SA 4.0 Today, the spirit of architectural utopianism seems to linger more as a cautionary tale than a guiding light. In an era increasingly defined by economic constraints, climate urgency, and social complexity, the focus has shifted toward feasibility, resilience, and incremental change. The profession often celebrates what can be built rather than what dares to imagine, leaving many visionary, unbuilt projects overlooked or dismissed as impractical. Consequently, holistic and speculative thinking has taken a backseat to metrics, deliverables, and regulatory compliance. While this pragmatism addresses real-world constraints, it raises a pressing question: have we lost something vital by retreating from the imaginative realm? The challenge for today’s architects is not simply to dream or to build, but to reclaim the space in between, where visionary thinking can coexist with grounded execution. Got a project that’s too wild for this world? Submit your conceptual works, images and ideas for global recognition and print publication in the 2025 Vision Awards, June 6th marks the end of the Main Entry period — click here to submit your work. Featured image: Utopia by Peter Wheatcroft / 10 Design, 2023 Vision Awards, Special Mention The post The Death of 20th Century Idealism: Are Today’s Architects Too Pragmatic? appeared first on Journal.