Best of the rest Research roundup: 7 stories we almost missed Also: drumming chimpanzees, picking styles of two jazz greats, and an ancient underground city's soundscape Jennifer Ouellette – May 31, 2025 5:37 pm | 4 Time lapse photos show a new ping-pong-playing robot performing a top spin. Credit: David Nguyen, Kendrick Cancio and Sangbae Kim Time lapse photos show a new ping-pong-playing robot performing a top spin. Credit: David Nguyen, Kendrick Cancio and Sangbae Kim Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more It's a regrettable reality that there is never time to cover all the interesting scientific stories we come across each month. In the past, we've featured year-end roundups of cool science stories we (almost) missed. This year, we're experimenting with a monthly collection. May's list includes a nifty experiment to make a predicted effect of special relativity visible; a ping-pong playing robot that can return hits with 88 percent accuracy; and the discovery of the rare genetic mutation that makes orange cats orange, among other highlights. Special relativity made visible Credit: TU Wien Perhaps the most well-known feature of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity is time dilation and length contraction. In 1959, two physicists predicted another feature of relativistic motion: an object moving near the speed of light should also appear to be rotated. It's not been possible to demonstrate this experimentally, however—until now. Physicists at the Vienna University of Technology figured out how to reproduce this rotational effect in the lab using laser pulses and precision cameras, according to a paper published in the journal Communications Physics. They found their inspiration in art, specifically an earlier collaboration with an artist named Enar de Dios Rodriguez, who collaborated with VUT and the University of Vienna on a project involving ultra-fast photography and slow light. For this latest research, they used objects shaped like a cube and a sphere and moved them around the lab while zapping them with ultrashort laser pulses, recording the flashes with a high-speed camera. Getting the timing just right effectively yields similar results to a light speed of 2 m/s. After photographing the objects many times using this method, the team then combined the still images into a single image. The results: the cube looked twisted and the sphere's North Pole was in a different location—a demonstration of the rotational effect predicted back in 1959. DOI: Communications Physics, 2025. 10.1038/s42005-025-02003-6  (About DOIs). Drumming chimpanzees A chimpanzee feeling the rhythm. Credit: Current Biology/Eleuteri et al., 2025. Chimpanzees are known to "drum" on the roots of trees as a means of communication, often combining that action with what are known as "pant-hoot" vocalizations (see above video). Scientists have found that the chimps' drumming exhibits key elements of musical rhythm much like humans, according to  a paper published in the journal Current Biology—specifically non-random timing and isochrony. And chimps from different geographical regions have different drumming rhythms. Back in 2022, the same team observed that individual chimps had unique styles of "buttress drumming," which served as a kind of communication, letting others in the same group know their identity, location, and activity. This time around they wanted to know if this was also true of chimps living in different groups and whether their drumming was rhythmic in nature. So they collected video footage of the drumming behavior among 11 chimpanzee communities across six populations in East Africa (Uganda) and West Africa (Ivory Coast), amounting to 371 drumming bouts. Their analysis of the drum patterns confirmed their hypothesis. The western chimps drummed in regularly spaced hits, used faster tempos, and started drumming earlier during their pant-hoot vocalizations. Eastern chimps would alternate between shorter and longer spaced hits. Since this kind of rhythmic percussion is one of the earliest evolved forms of human musical expression and is ubiquitous across cultures, findings such as this could shed light on how our love of rhythm evolved. DOI: Current Biology, 2025. 10.1016/j.cub.2025.04.019  (About DOIs). Distinctive styles of two jazz greats Jazz lovers likely need no introduction to Joe Pass and Wes Montgomery, 20th century guitarists who influenced generations of jazz musicians with their innovative techniques. Montgomery, for instance, didn't use a pick, preferring to pluck the strings with his thumb—a method he developed because he practiced at night after working all day as a machinist and didn't want to wake his children or neighbors. Pass developed his own range of picking techniques, including fingerpicking, hybrid picking, and "flat picking." Chirag Gokani and Preston Wilson, both with Applied Research Laboratories and the University of Texas, Austin, greatly admired both Pass and Montgomery and decided to explore the underlying the acoustics of their distinctive playing, modeling the interactions of the thumb, fingers, and pick with a guitar string. They described their research during a meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in New Orleans, LA. Among their findings: Montgomery achieved his warm tone by playing closer to the bridge and mostly plucking at the string. Pass's rich tone arose from a combination of using a pick and playing closer to the guitar neck. There were also differences in how much a thumb, finger, and pick slip off the string:  use of the thumb (Montgomery) produced more of a "pluck" compared to the pick (Pass), which produced more of a "strike." Gokani and Wilson think their model could be used to synthesize digital guitars with a more realistic sound, as well as helping guitarists better emulate Pass and Montgomery. Sounds of an ancient underground city Credit: Sezin Nas Turkey is home to the underground city Derinkuyu, originally carved out inside soft volcanic rock around the 8th century BCE. It was later expanded to include four main ventilation channels (and some 50,000 smaller shafts) serving seven levels, which could be closed off from the inside with a large rolling stone. The city could hold up to 20,000 people and it  was connected to another underground city, Kaymakli, via tunnels. Derinkuyu helped protect Arab Muslims during the Arab-Byzantine wars, served as a refuge from the Ottomans in the 14th century, and as a haven for Armenians escaping persecution in the early 20th century, among other functions. The tunnels were rediscovered in the 1960s and about half of the city has been open to visitors since 2016. The site is naturally of great archaeological interest, but there has been little to no research on the acoustics of the site, particularly the ventilation channels—one of Derinkuyu's most unique features, according to Sezin Nas, an architectural acoustician at Istanbul Galata University in Turkey.  She gave a talk at a meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in New Orleans, LA, about her work on the site's acoustic environment. Nas analyzed a church, a living area, and a kitchen, measuring sound sources and reverberation patterns, among other factors, to create a 3D virtual soundscape. The hope is that a better understanding of this aspect of Derinkuyu could improve the design of future underground urban spaces—as well as one day using her virtual soundscape to enable visitors to experience the sounds of the city themselves. MIT's latest ping-pong robot Robots playing ping-pong have been a thing since the 1980s, of particular interest to scientists because it requires the robot to combine the slow, precise ability to grasp and pick up objects with dynamic, adaptable locomotion. Such robots need high-speed machine vision, fast motors and actuators, precise control, and the ability to make accurate predictions in real time, not to mention being able to develop a game strategy. More recent designs use AI techniques to allow the robots to "learn" from prior data to improve their performance. MIT researchers have built their own version of a ping-pong playing robot, incorporating a lightweight design and the ability to precisely return shots. They built on prior work developing the Humanoid, a small bipedal two-armed robot—specifically, modifying the Humanoid's arm by adding an extra degree of freedom to the wrist so the robot could control a ping-pong paddle. They tested their robot by mounting it on a ping-pong table and lobbing 150 balls at it from the other side of the table, capturing the action with high-speed cameras. The new bot can execute three different swing types (loop, drive, and chip) and during the trial runs it returned the ball with impressive accuracy across all three types: 88.4 percent, 89.2 percent, and 87.5 percent, respectively. Subsequent tweaks to theirrystem brought the robot's strike speed up to 19 meters per second (about 42 MPH), close to the 12 to 25 meters per second of advanced human players. The addition of control algorithms gave the robot the ability to aim. The robot still has limited mobility and reach because it has to be fixed to the ping-pong table but the MIT researchers plan to rig it to a gantry or wheeled platform in the future to address that shortcoming. Why orange cats are orange Credit: Astropulse/CC BY-SA 3.0 Cat lovers know orange cats are special for more than their unique coloring, but that's the quality that has intrigued scientists for almost a century. Sure, lots of animals have orange, ginger, or yellow hues, like tigers, orangutans, and golden retrievers. But in domestic cats that color is specifically linked to sex. Almost all orange cats are male. Scientists have now identified the genetic mutation responsible and it appears to be unique to cats, according to a paper published in the journal Current Biology. Prior work had narrowed down the region on the X chromosome most likely to contain the relevant mutation. The scientists knew that females usually have just one copy of the mutation and in that case have tortoiseshell (partially orange) coloring, although in rare cases, a female cat will be orange if both X chromosomes have the mutation. Over the last five to ten years, there has been an explosion in genome resources (including complete sequenced genomes) for cats which greatly aided the team's research, along with taking additional DNA samples from cats at spay and neuter clinics. From an initial pool of 51 candidate variants, the scientists narrowed it down to three genes, only one of which was likely to play any role in gene regulation: Arhgap36. It wasn't known to play any role in pigment cells in humans, mice, or non-orange cats. But orange cats are special; their mutation (sex-linked orange) turns on Arhgap36 expression in pigment cells (and only pigment cells), thereby interfering with the molecular pathway that controls coat color in other orange-shaded mammals. The scientists suggest that this is an example of how genes can acquire new functions, thereby enabling species to better adapt and evolve. DOI: Current Biology, 2025. 10.1016/j.cub.2025.03.075  (About DOIs). Not a Roman "massacre" after all Credit: Martin Smith In 1936, archaeologists excavating the Iron Age hill fort Maiden Castle in the UK unearthed dozens of human skeletons, all showing signs of lethal injuries to the head and upper body—likely inflicted with weaponry. At the time, this was interpreted as evidence of a pitched battle between the Britons of the local Durotriges tribe and invading Romans. The Romans slaughtered the native inhabitants, thereby bringing a sudden violent end to the Iron Age. At least that's the popular narrative that has prevailed ever since in countless popular articles, books, and documentaries. But a paper published in the Oxford Journal of Archaeology calls that narrative into question. Archaeologists at Bournemouth University have re-analyzed those burials, incorporating radiocarbon dating into their efforts. They concluded that those individuals didn't die in a single brutal battle. Rather, it was Britons killing other Britons over multiple generations between the first century BCE and the first century CE—most likely in periodic localized outbursts of violence in the lead-up to the Roman conquest of Britain. It's possible there are still many human remains waiting to be discovered at the site, which could shed further light on what happened at Maiden Castle. DOI: Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 2025. 10.1111/ojoa.12324  (About DOIs). Jennifer Ouellette Senior Writer Jennifer Ouellette Senior Writer Jennifer is a senior writer at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban. 4 Comments

Image: Zion Grassl / Nintendo LifeI’m absolutely terrified of roller coasters. The lack of control you have, the speed, high heights, twists and turns - all this makes for something I’ve never been able to convince myself is worth the thrill. It was easy to get over my fear of flying in aeroplanes as there’s always something exciting and extraordinarily worthwhile waiting for me on the other side of the flight. Some things in life I would just never be able to do without flying far away in a plane. However, with roller coasters I couldn't say the same, until now. 'Mine Cart Madness' opened to the public at Universal Studios Japan in Osaka at the tail end of 2024, and is also now in the States at Universal Epic Universe in Orlando, Florida. I’ve visited the smaller version of Super Nintendo World located at Universal in Hollywood, CA, a few times, and managed to ride their Mario Kart ride, Bowser’s Challenge, as well. Lots of Kong, but still needs more Dixie The MK ride is essentially a light-gun game with a heavy Augmented Reality element which forces you to wear 'goggles' making it hard to appreciate the physical environment you're riding through. You can take the 'goggles' off, but you lose the entire point of the ride in doing so, and the animatronic set pieces and environmental elements aren't all that exciting on their own. The game can be confusing at first and, for being a ride themed around a video game that traditionally encourages you to race fast, it's quite slow, too. Images: Zion Grassl / Nintendo Life However, almost none of this can be said about the new Donkey Kong Country ride. I’m a much bigger DK fan than I am Mario, and even though this new Mine Cart ride is pitched as a more traditional roller coaster that sometimes even claims to go off the rails, my curiosity and love for the series had me clamouring to see what it had to offer. I’m thrilled to say it didn’t disappoint, even though it proved to be quite a bumpy ride at times. The queue for Mine Cart Madness takes you through a temple that reminded me most of Millstone Mayhem and Temple Tempest from the original Super Nintendo game. Most of the line is indoors or at least covered and was kept quite cool thanks to air conditioning, also featuring some themed water fountains if you need a drink. Here you’ll also find a few touchpoints for the Power Band that will net you digital collectibles if you’re using the Universal mobile app. The line is fairly simple with not much to see, aside from a surprising appearance from Cranky Kong and Squawks the parrot. Both are completely animatronic and fully voiced and bicker back and forth at each other. Not only do they help pass the time in line, they help lay down the story and what you can expect to see on the ride. Even though I had no one waiting in front of me, I stood here for quite a while and just listened to them chat, like a couple of good pals catching up after a long time apart. Images: Zion Grassl / Nintendo Life Once it came time for me to sit down in my mine cart, I could feel my heart sink into my stomach as I remembered seeing the ride from the ground floor of the park and it going much, much faster than all of the other Nintendo-themed rides created up to this point. I was honestly pretty scared, but my love for the Kongs apparently knows no bounds, and it helped that I had a few pals with me (thanks, Brian from IGN and Marcus from Game Informer for keeping me calm!). The ride itself only lasts a few minutes, so I’ll refrain from spoiling too much as I really think if you’re going to do this, you should go in knowing as little as possible. Things really do go off the rails in some surprising and shocking ways, though. So much so that at one specific point on the ride, I thought it truly was the end for us. If you’ve seen the blueprints or caught the video of Miyamoto taking a tour of the park in Japan, you’ll likely have heard about the ride's big hook. If you've played a mine cart level in DKC, you'll know that platforming is very much a thing even in the mine cart, and that’s replicated here. Mine Cart Madness, never goes upside down (thankfully), but it takes you up and down some steep slopes and twists and turns every now and again, mimicking the feeling of flying off the rails and landing safely back on them. The jumps themselves didn’t feel as pronounced as I was expecting, as it seems to work more as a trick of the eye than your cart being hurled in the air. Honestly, that’s probably a good thing. Also, if you want a more authentic and adventurous experience, sit in one of the front seats if you can. Image: Zion Grassl / Nintendo Life You’ll also meet a few of your favourite DKC buddies, and this alone kept me coming back to Mine Cart Madness for multiple rides. These animatronic set pieces make this ride a lot more fun than the Mario Kart ride to revisit, as it's so exciting to see these chimpanzees in action. There are more than just chimps to see, though, so if you're only familiar with the more recent Country games, there will be more surprises in store. For me, the ride was made even better at night as yellow and blue neon lights add a comforting glow to the experience. You’ll rush through a few indoor sections which make it feel like a dark ride at times too. There’s so much to look at that not once did I feel like I saw everything; if you swing your head around at different points, you may catch a nice glimpse of the park, a dainty splash of a rushing waterfall, or even a few adventurous Pikmin that broken away from the pack. This may just be a kink to be worked out, but every now and then I felt the ride could get quite bumpy. After exiting my mine cart, I heard other riders talk about how unexpectedly bumpy it was for them, too. I can’t imagine barreling down a mine shaft in a rusty rock wagon would be the most comfortable thing in real life, so maybe it’s just all a part of the experience. Something worth noting, though, no doubt. Images: Zion Grassl / Nintendo Life What might be a downside for some is the fact that there’s no game element to this ride whatsoever. For me though, this was a huge win. Seeing the detail and quality in these animatronics, even just for a few short moments, is something I'll remember for a long, long time. It sounds silly, but this made me feel closer to the world of Donkey Kong Country than ever before - the Mario Kart ride didn’t leave this big of an impression. It's a huge step up in overall production and an experience I hope every diehard DKC fan can have in their life. As a member of the press, I was pretty much obliged to try it, but I think I finally understand the thrill people are chasing when they willingly choose to ride a roller coaster. If Nintendo and Universal decide to make their next ride even more intense, I hope I’ll be ready for it. Even if it had a name like 'Funky’s Crash Course.' Travel costs for this trip and early access to the park were provided by Universal. Let's use the Lens of Truth Share:0 1 Zion's been crafting videos and photos with our team for over half a decade now. While you'll usually find Zion playing RPGs, platformers, and adventure games, anything with a good story is sure to be right up his alley. For an on brand example: MOTHER 3 may not be recognized much by the Western side of Nintendo, but he still found a way to play it anyways and hopes it makes it way to the West officially so others can enjoy it more easily. Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment... Related Articles Shigeru Miyamoto Explains Why Donkey Kong Has Been Redesigned You want expressive? You got it Talking Point: The Switch 2 Pre-Order Situation Sucks, But Can Nintendo Do Anything About It? 503sier said than done Random: Miyamoto Can't Talk About Switch 2, Talks About Switch 2 Anyway I do what I want, bruv! Nintendo Partners With Samsung To Produce Main Chips For Switch 2 Samsung has also "pushed" for an OLED refresh, it's claimed

Jane Goodall says she was objectified by male scientists when she first appeared on the cover of National Geographic. Robin L Marshall/Getty Images 2025-05-22T04:30:39Z Save Saved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? Jane Goodall, 91, says she was objectified by her male peers early in her career. "Back then, all I wanted was to get back to the chimps. So if my legs were getting me the money, thank you legs," she said. While her experience happened years ago, gender inequality persists in the workplace. Jane Goodall, 91, may be one of the world's leading primatologists now, but there was a time when she wasn't being taken seriously.During an appearance on Tuesday'sCall Her Daddy" podcast, Goodall reflected on the challenges she faced in her decadeslong career.Goodall told podcast host Alex Cooper that her love for animals started when she read "Tarzan of the Apes" as a child."Anyway, I knew there wasn't a Tarzan. But that's when my dream began," Goodall said. "I will grow up, go to Africa, live with wild animals, and write books — no thought of being a scientist."Most people around her thought her dream was unrealistic, except her mother, she said."And everybody said, 'That's ridiculous. I mean, you don't have money. Africa's far away and you're just a girl,'" Goodall said.Years later, Goodall appeared on the cover of National Geographic.She recalled being objectified by others in the scientific community who said that her looks, not her research, earned her the spotlight."Well, some of the jealous male scientists would say, well, you know, she's just got this notoriety and she's getting money from Geographic, and they want her on the cover, and they wouldn't put her on the cover if she didn't have nice legs," Goodall said.If someone had said that today, they'd be sued, she added. "Back then, all I wanted was to get back to the chimps. So if my legs were getting me the money, thank you legs. And if you look at those covers, they were jolly nice legs," Goodall said.The English conservationist acknowledged that things are different now."I did it by accepting that, in a way, they were right. So, thank you for giving me this advantage. It was good to give me that money," Goodall said. "I know that for me it was a long time ago. It was a different era. It wouldn't work today. "While Goodall's experience may have unfolded years ago, gender inequality persists in the workplace.Sexism at work comes in many forms, including wage disparities, stereotypes, and harassment.Several female celebrities have also spoken up about the discrimination they faced in Hollywood.In an interview with Porter magazine in November 2023, Anne Hathaway said she was told her career would "fall off a cliff" after she turned 35.In January 2024, Sofia Vergara told the LA Times that her acting jobs were limited because of her "stupid accent."Kathy Bates told Variety in September that she could have a long acting career only because she "wasn't a beauty queen."A representative for Goodall did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent by Business Insider outside regular hours. Recommended video

May 18, 2025Accidental Alchemy, Flamingo Food Tornado, and Kosmos-482 LandsKosmos-482 crash-lands, physicists turn lead to gold and animals show some clever behaviors. Anaissa Ruiz Tejada/Scientific AmericanSUBSCRIBE TO Science QuicklyHappy Monday, listeners! For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, this is Allison Parshall filling in for Rachel Feltman. Let’s kick off the week with a quick roundup of some of the latest science news.First, an update on that doomed Soviet-era spacecraft Rachel mentioned last week. After spending more than half a century orbiting Earth, the Kosmos-482 probe made a crash landing on May 10. According to a post on the app Telegram from Russian space agency Roscosmos, the spacecraft crashed into the Indian Ocean somewhere west of Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia. Space.com reports that other space agencies have estimated different landing spots for the probe, from locations on land in South Asia to stretches of the eastern Pacific. We may never know exactly where Kosmos-482 finally came to rest. In any case, we haven’t heard any reports of falling space junk causing harm to humans, so it seems likely the object crashed somewhere out of the way.Now for some accidental alchemy. Despite the wishes of medieval scholars, there’s no way to turn lead into gold, right? Wrong. Physicists at the Large Hadron Collider apparently did just that—very briefly, but still. The scientists published a description of this magical-sounding transformation earlier this month in the journal Physical Review C. 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.Here’s how it worked: Scientists at CERN use the Large Hadron Collider to study the early universe by firing lead nuclei at one another at nearly the speed of light. Instead of smashing head-on, the nuclei usually pass very close to one another. In these near-misses, the powerful electric field from one nucleus can shake up the other. If the field is strong enough, it can knock out three protons from an incoming lead nucleus. Since gold has three fewer protons than lead, this transforms the lead into gold.The researchers estimate that 89,000 gold nuclei are produced per second during these experiments. That means that between 2015 and 2018—the accelerator’s second run, which is when the scientists collected this data—the collider produced 29 trillionths of a gram of gold. Unfortunately for any prospectors at CERN, those atoms tend to get obliterated in about a microsecond. Nature reports that another CERN accelerator also observed this alchemical reaction during a 2002 to 2004 run. But because that experiment used less energy, less gold was produced.In public health news, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released last Wednesday indicates a massive drop in overdose deaths between 2023 and 2024. In the 45 years that the CDC has collected equivalent data, the biggest one-year dip seen previously was 4 percent in 2018, according to the Associated Press. Deaths dropped from about 110,000 in 2023 to roughly 80,000 in 2024, which represents a nearly 27 percent decrease. The AP reports that experts mentioned several possible factors behind the drop, including the increased availability of naloxone for treating overdoses.It’s important to note that, while this is promising news, we still have a long way to go. Overdose deaths are still higher than they were before the COVID pandemic, and overdose remains the leading cause of death for people in the U.S. between ages 18 and 44. If you don’t already carry naloxone with you in case you encounter someone experiencing an overdose, consider looking into what resources your state and county offer for training and distribution. You can check out GetNaloxoneNow.org to find more information.We’ll wrap up with a couple of fun animal stories.Let’s start with flamingos. They’re not exactly known for being very active. You’re probably picturing the birds standing calmly in crystal clear water. But according to a study published last Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they’re surprisingly busy just beneath the surface.Similar to the way spiders use webs to trap prey, the study authors say, flamingos create little water tornados to coax food straight into their mouths.First, the birds use their feet to churn sediment up. Then they jerk their heads up, turning those small whorls of sediment into vortexes. Meanwhile, the animals chatter their beaks to create even more water movement, pulling the swirling sediment into their mouths. From there, the flamingos can filter out tiny prey such as brine shrimp—but it seems like this filter feeding is a lot less passive than it looks.In other animal news, it turns out that chimps use leaves for everything from first aid to bathroom hygiene. In a study published Tuesday in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, researchers describe their observations of two different communities of chimpanzees in Uganda. The researchers identified numerous instances of “self-care” using leaves, from dabbing wounds to packing them with chewed-up plant matter. The chimps sometimes offered this care to others, too. That’s similar to behavior other researchers reported last year in orangutans over in Indonesia. Orangutans have also been seen applying juice made from saliva and the leaves of a plant with anti-inflammatory properties all over their bodies, which scientists suspect they might be doing to relieve joint and muscle pain.Plants seem to be part of a larger wellness routine for chimps, too: the scientists also saw them using leaves to clean themselves up after pooping or having sex. The researchers even described one instance of what they called “prosocial postcoital penis wiping,” which means one chimp leant another a hand with intimate personal hygiene.While these aren’t the first documented cases of first aid in nonhuman animals—or even in chimps, who have been seen putting smashed insects in their wounds, possibly for medicinal purposes—scientists are excited to see evidence that medicinal plant use might be more widespread than expected among our close relatives. That could suggest that wound care goes way, way back in our evolutionary history.That’s all for this week’s news roundup. Rachel will be back on Wednesday.Science Quickly is produced by Rachel Feltman, Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was hosted by me, Allison Parshall, and 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 Allison Parshall. Have a great week!

What are we learning from the genomes of chimps and other apes?S.Tuengler/inafrica.de/Alamy This is an extract from Our Human Story, our newsletter about the revolution in archaeology. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every month. One of the most vexing unsolved problems in human evolution is its starting point – about which we know almost nothing. I’m referring to the last common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest living relatives. This mystery ape lived millions of years ago; at some point, the population split into two. One group gave rise to modern-day chimps…

Chimpanzees Perform First Aid on Each Other, Study Finds, and It May Shed Light on the Evolution of Human Health Care Researchers describe cases of chimps tending to others’ wounds, as well as a chimp that freed another from a snare A new study suggests chimpanzees don't just perform self-care—in some cases, they look out for each other. Elodie Freymann Chimpanzees use medicinal plants to perform first aid on others, according to a new study that points toward the origin of health care in humans. Researchers combined 30 years of written observations of chimpanzees in Uganda’s Budongo Forest with eight months of their collected data and suggest the animals provide care—not just to themselves, but to other chimpanzees. Overall, they documented 41 cases of medical care in the animals. Most involved instances of the chimpanzees practicing self-care and hygiene, such as using a leaf to wipe themselves after an excretion or chewing a plant and applying it to a wound. But seven of the instances involved chimpanzees providing care to others, and in four of those cases, the animals weren’t closely related. The work was published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution The study challenges assumptions about non-human animals’ ability to provide altruistic care, write the authors. “One of the things humans have clung onto is that we’re this very special species, because we are capable of altruism and we’re capable of empathy,” says Elodie Freymann, a primatologist at the University of Oxford in England and lead author of the study, to Evan Bush at NBC News. “Animals are helping each other out. They’re capable of identifying others in need and then addressing those specific needs.” Chimpanzees use medicinal leaves to perform first aid, scientists discover Watch on For instance, the researchers uncovered an incident from 2008, when scientists had observed a male chimp freeing an unrelated female from a nylon snare set by hunters to trap game. In 2012, a male chimp sucked the wound of an unrelated male. The work is part of a growing body of research that sheds light on the evolution of health care, especially since chimpanzees are among humans’ closest living relatives. The study “offers evidence that some of the foundations of human medicine—recognizing suffering, applying treatments and caring for others—are not uniquely human, but part of our deep evolutionary heritage,” says Christine Webb, a primatologist at Harvard University who was not involved in the research, to Martin J. Kernan at Science News. Chimpanzees aren’t the only apes that self-medicate. Last year, scientists observed a wild orangutan using a known medicinal plant to heal a facial wound. Other animals, like elephants and lizards, appear to eat medicinal plants as self-care. “In our ancestors, we have examples of health care in humans since Neanderthals or even before, but what’s very interesting is that we still don’t understand fully how these kind of exploratory behaviors evolved,” says Alessandra Mascaro, a primatologist at Osnabrück University in Germany who was not involved in the study, to NBC News. “We are just scratching the surface.” Freymann still wants to understand why chimps don’t always provide care to each other if they have the ability, she tells Science News. “If chimps sometimes know how to help others get out of snares, for example, why aren’t they helping all chimps get out?” she says. “Why are they being selective about this care, and why do some chimps seem to warrant it, while others don’t?” One possibility is that because the animals in Budongo face such a high risk of injury or death from snares, they’re more likely to take care of each other’s injuries than other chimpanzee groups, according to a statement from the journal. But more data is still needed to confirm this. It also remains unclear whether the caring behavior is learned, or if it’s something instinctual for the animals. But once, Freymann witnessed a young chimp looking on as an adult put chewed-up bark on his own knee, reports Science News. The team also found a report of a young chimp helping her mother tend to a wound after observing the adult caring for her injury. “I’m not making a case that every certain medicinal behavior is learned,” Freymann says to Vivian Ho at the Washington Post, “but I think it’s not out of the question that chimpanzees are capable of possessing medicinal culture.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

The Trump administration is not known for particularly prioritizing animal welfare. But in its first few months, alongside announcements that it would seek to gut federal funding for scientific research, Trump officials have taken steps toward a goal that animal advocates have been championing for decades: the end of animal experimentation. On April 10, the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to phase out animal testing requirements for the development of monoclonal antibodies — used to treat a variety of diseases, including cancer and Covid-19 — and a range of other drugs.The Environmental Protection Agency, which has long required animal testing for substances including pesticides and fuel additives, also plans to revive an agency ban on animal testing that dates back to the first Trump administration. The agency had set deadlines under President Donald Trump in 2019 to reduce animal testing 30 percent by 2025, then eradicate it altogether by 2035. The Biden administration eliminated those deadlines, but now, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin “is wholly committed to getting the agency back on track,” spokesperson Molly Vaseliou told Vox in an email.Late last month came perhaps the most consequential announcement: a major new initiative from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, to reduce the use of animals in research and accelerate the development of novel, animal-free methods. Estimates suggest NIH-funded research relies on millions of animals every year in the US. That includes mostly rodents, but also monkeys, dogs, pigs, rabbits, and others. But Trump’s NIH cited scientific literature that finds animal models can have limited relevance to human outcomes.Advocacy groups that oppose animal testing, including PETA and Humane World for Animals (formerly known as the Humane Society of the United States), celebrated the news as the most significant commitment ever made by NIH to reduce its dependence on animal experimentation. The recent announcements are “among the biggest news there’s ever been for animals in laboratories,” Elizabeth Baker, director of research policy for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), told me. Together, these moves represent a potentially monumental shift in American science — one that could spare millions of animals from painful experiments and, advocates hope, speed up the adoption of cutting-edge technologies to produce better, more reliable research than animal models ever did. But if the goal is not just to benefit animals, but also to make science better, the Trump administration is surely going about it in a strange way. It’s waging war on scientific institutions, seeking to slash research budgets — massively, seemingly indiscriminately, and questionably legally — at the NIH and the National Science Foundation, undermining decades of American leadership in science and medicine. It hasn’t committed any new funding toward its goal of advancing animal-free research methods.In this light, scientists are understandably skeptical that research policy coming from this administration could benefit science, rather than just sabotage it. Putting animal research on the chopping block, many believe, could merely be a convenient and popular way to slash support for science across the board. Yet those seeking to phase out government-funded animal research aren’t just anti-science radicals — they’re also animal testing critics who correctly point out that animal experiments are expensive, often ineffective, and come at a steep ethical cost. This has created a diverse, sometimes-uneasy coalition of animal welfare advocates, science reformers, and far-right political figures — some are willing to accept reforms any way they can get them; others are more wary of moves made by this administration, even when their agendas align. In Vox’s Future Perfect section, you’ll find some of the deepest reporting and analysis available anywhere of the scientific, ethical, and political dimensions of animal experimentation.• The harrowing lives of animal researchers• Animal rights advocates are ready for Trump’s war on science• What can caged lab monkeys tell us about free human beings?• What went wrong with autism research? Let’s start with lab mice.• The US uses endangered monkeys to test drugs. This law could free them.• 43 lab monkeys escaped in South Carolina. They have a legal claim to freedom.The Trump administration’s NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya, embodies this alliance: An established scientist, albeit one who’s publicly aligned himself with the political right in recent years, he has praised the watchdog group White Coat Waste, which campaigns aggressively against animal research, as “heroes.” Now, with the NIH’s plan to reduce animal research, he’s arguing for the need to transition to animal-free methods in the language of scientific progress rather than the tear-it-all-down approach of other members of the Trump administration. Money and resources are powerful incentives in scientific research; allocate them in the right way, and scientists will be pushed to innovate in whatever direction is deemed important for societal progress. Evolving beyond the pervasive use of animals in science undoubtedly ought to be one of those priorities: Lab animals experience immense suffering in labs, living in intensive confinement and undergoing painful experiments involving blood draws, tube feeding, forced inhalation of substances, and other procedures. Finding alternatives that would end this agony would be one of American science’s most important achievements.It’s unclear whether a moonshot for alternatives to animal research can emerge from an administration that’s imposing widespread austerity on science. And there may be reason to worry that the Trump administration’s broader anti-regulatory approach could have negative consequences for the welfare of animals that still remain in labs. But many advocates of animal-free methods are willing to take the bet, hoping that they can use this uncertain, unsettled moment in American science policy to help usher in a paradigm shift in how the US uses animals in science. What will these policy changes actually do?For decades, animal advocates, and a growing number of scientists, have disputed whether animal trials are the most effective tools available in modern science. Historically, animal dissection laid the groundwork for early medicine, and breakthroughs from animal research have helped lead to polio vaccines, the preventative HIV medication PrEP, and treatments for Parkinson’s disease. But animals are not necessarily suitable proxies for humans, and more than 90 percent of drug trials fail between animal and human testing trials, according to a 2023 review by animal welfare advocates. It’s a problem many scientists acknowledge, albeit not always publicly. Former NIH director Francis Collins in 2014 privately discussed “the pointlessness of much of the research being conducted on non-human primates” in emails obtained by PETA via public records request.That the government is now planning cuts to animal research is undeniably groundbreaking. But how these planned cutbacks and phase-outs will actually unfold is more complex. In its announcement, the NIH said it will establish an Office of Research Innovation, Validation, and Application to scale the use of non-animal methods, expand funding for these approaches, evaluate human relevance, and include experts in alternative animal-free methods on grant review panels so that more of the agency’s funding is allocated toward those methods. Scientists are often incentivized to use animals in their research, as Celia Ford wrote for Voxearlier this year, a phenomenon sometimes called “animal methods bias.” Academic journals prefer to publish studies using animals, and internal research ethics review boards are mostly comprised of animal researchers. Advancing technologies, such as computational modeling or organ-on-a-chip technology, offer alternatives to animal testing, and many scientists around the world are embracing these new methods. But the scientific community has been slow to adopt them. To change that, the NIH’s new initiative will “address any possible bias towards animal studies” among its grant review staff. The agency will also publicly report on its annual research spending, something it hasn’t done in the past, “to measure progress toward reduction of funding for animal studies and an increase in funding for human-based approaches,” according to the recent announcement. The EPA, meanwhile, requires toxicology tests on animals for many substances that it regulates, including fuel and fuel additives, certain pesticides, and wastewater from industrial facilities. It has not yet announced an official plan to reduce animal research, though a 2016 agency reform required increased reliance on non-animal methods. Many are hoping the agency — which previously estimated that between 20,000 and 100,000 or more animals are used in toxicology testing every year — will recommit to its 2019 directive to end animal testing requirements by 2035, Baker says. Of course, announcements are meaningless without plans — and the FDA is the only agency to announce a plan that lays out a three-year timeline and alternative testing strategies. The FDA’s current requirements for animal testing in new drug approvals are somewhat unclear. The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, which Congress passed in 2022, authorized the use of non-animal alternatives in place of animal studies for FDA-regulated drugs, but some of the FDA’s regulations and nonbinding guidelines specifically mention animal tests. Pharmaceutical companies that have tried to obtain drug approval without animal testing have faced expensive delays. As a result, in practice, most drugs approved by the FDA are still tested on animals.According to the FDA, current regulations still require animal testing for monoclonal antibodies, which are lab-made proteins that can bind to and kill specific targets in the body. The FDA’s phaseout of animal tests will start with these antibodies and expand to other treatments. Lab animals’ immune responses are not predictive of human responses “due to interspecies differences,” the agency’s plan states. Safety risks may go undetected in animals, and the stress of laboratory life can affect their immune function and responses, a significant confounding factor in animal research that scientists have noted before. Animal testing is also very expensive: Monoclonal antibody development often involves monkeys, which can cost up to $50,000 per animal, according to the FDA; its plan notes it can cost $650 million to $750 million and take up to nine years to develop monoclonal antibody treatments, delaying delivery of new therapies to patients.While advancements like organ-on-a-chip and computer modeling are both exciting and laudable, counting on them to replace animals may be premature, Naomi Charalambakis, director of communications and science policy for Americans for Medical Progress, a nonprofit that supports the use of animals in research, said in an email. These tools, many of which are still under development, can’t fully replicate “the complexity of living organisms” — which is why she says they should be integrated “alongside traditional animal studies.”“Animal models remain vital for answering complex biomedical questions — particularly those involving whole-body systems, long-term effects, and unpredictable immune responses,” she says.A monkey used for research at the University of Muenster in Germany. Friso Gentsch/Getty ImagesScientists have also pointed out that the FDA’s promise that animal testing will be “reduced, refined, or potentially replaced” is not new. In 2022, the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 paved the way for alternatives to animal testing, and in December 2023, an NIH advisory committee made similar recommendations to develop non-animal methods. Regardless, the FDA’s and NIH’s recent announcements are among the first public statements by government organizations questioning the efficacy of animal testing. Can massive cuts to research funding help animals?In February, the Trump administration took the highly controversial step of capping “indirect costs,” the portion of universities’ research grants that cover administrative and operations expenses not directly tied to the research itself, at 15 percent of an institution’s grant. The research community has warned that the decision would be catastrophic for science — budgets will be slashed, young researchers may be laid off and see their careers ruined, and important science may fall by the wayside. But for animals, the news is “fantastic,” argues Jeremy Beckham, a law student and animal advocate who’s worked for organizations including PETA, PCRM, and the Beagle Freedom Project.While indirect costs are not a “meritless concept,” Beckham says, he believes universities renew research grants that harm animals while yielding little to no benefit in order to continue receiving operational funding. Universities “are allowing a lot of extremely pointless and cruel animal experiments to happen, because it’s such a gravy train for them for these indirect costs,” he says.Oregon Health & Science University, for example, which receives 56 percent of its grant in indirect costs for animal studies, has racked up several critical Animal Welfare Act citations for 14 animal deaths at its research labs since 2018. At Wayne State University in Michigan, researchers have induced heart failure in hundreds of dogs in a cardiac research experiment that has been running since 1991 but has “failed to help a single patient,” according to PCRM. Wayne State receives an indirect cost rate of 54 percent, according to a recent statement from the university. In a statement about its dog experiments, Wayne State argued that it’s important to continue the cardiovascular research, even if “science does not move at the pace we would like.” Critics of the cuts to indirect costs, including Harvard immunologist Sarah Fortune, have argued that funding cuts will mean labs are forced to euthanize their animals. But many, if not all, were already going to be killed in experiments, Delcianna Winders, director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School, points out.In March, a federal judge blocked the NIH’s proposed cap on indirect costs, and universities are looking to negotiate. But if the proposal does go forward, “the number of animals in laboratories will plummet,” Beckham says.Despite its promises to reduce the number of animals in labs, the Trump administration’s disdain for regulation may mean those animals that still remain in labs will suffer more. During Trump’s first presidency, enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, the federal law that governs the welfare of animals used in research, took a nosedive. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the agency tasked with implementing that law, removed thousands of animal welfare reports, which had previously been publicly posted for decades, from its website. Given this precedent, Winders fears that going forward, the research industry will violate animal welfare laws “with complete impunity.”Research animals are already at a disadvantage under the Animal Welfare Act, and critics have insisted for decades that the act is insufficient and poorly enforced. The proverbial lab rat is not protected by the law — most mice and rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act’s definition of “animal.” By some estimates, it covers as little as 5 percent of research animals.Nor does the law place any legal limits on what can be done to animals in experiments. “That’s left completely to the research facility,” Winders says.A beagle used for research in Spain. Beagles are widely used in experiments in the US and around the world. Jo-Anne McArthur/Animal Equality/We AnimalsWhen a researcher violates the Animal Welfare Act, the USDA has few options for enforcement. Because inspectors cannot confiscate animals that are required for research, they can really only levy monetary fines. But for facilities that receive millions in funding and spend billions on research, fines — most of which are less than $15,000 — are so low that they’re considered a “cost of doing business,” according to a 2014 USDA Office of Inspector General report. The USDA calculates these fines using an internal penalty worksheet, which factors in a facility’s size, compliance history, and the severity of its violations. The worksheet was recently obtained by Eric Kleiman, founder of research accountability group Chimps to Chinchillas, and it revealed that the USDA does not take a research institution’s revenue or assets into account when calculating fines. The USDA instead measures a facility’s size via the number of animals it uses, according to the worksheet, which divides research facilities into four size categories, the largest being facilities with 3,500 or more animals. But this metric is flawed, Kleiman says, since many labs don’t keep their animals on-site, instead contracting out with research organizations that perform the experiments on their behalf.In a statement, USDA spokesperson Richard Bell said the agency “carries out enforcement actions consistent with the authority granted under the Animal Welfare Act and associated regulations.”And in recent months, there have been alarming signs of an anti-regulation shift. A 2024 Supreme Court decision, SEC vs. Jarkesy, calls government agencies’ ability to issue fines into question. It’s possible this ruling could be interpreted in a way that bars the USDA from assessing fines, Winders says. “We’re still waiting to see how broadly the government interprets it,” she says. “Given that other enforcement mechanisms are not available against research facilities…civil fines were really the only pathway, and now that’s on the chopping block.” Since the June 2024 ruling, the USDA has issued few fines. The USDA is “still assessing the impact of the Jarkesy ruling,” Bell said. In the past, the Office of Inspector General has held the USDA accountable for poor enforcement — but in January, the USDA inspector general was fired and escorted out of her office, Reuters reported. The next month, the USDA OIG released a report on inspections of dog breeders — some of which supply dogs to research facilities. The report was critical of the USDA’s enforcement, but key information including the number of facilities inspected, the number of animal welfare violations, and photos was redacted “due to privacy concerns.” Winders has “never, ever seen that before,” she says, and it could set a new precedent for decreased transparency.About 15 percent of USDA’s workforce has accepted the Trump administration’s buyout to leave the agency, including more than 1,300 people in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which inspects and enforces the Animal Welfare Act, Reuters reported on May 5.“If inspectors aren’t there, how are they going to have a window into what needs to be done?” says Sara Amundson, chief government relations officer for Humane World for Animals.Regardless, the US is witnessing a seismic shift in how we use animals for research — or even whether we use them at all. It’s too soon to say what the Trump administration’s reforms to animal testing will accomplish, or whether they’ll produce durable changes in American science that manage to outlive an administration that has declared war on the scientific community. Although animal welfare is a bipartisan issue, it’s rarely been a priority for previous administrations, Republican or Democrat. To have an administration that, within months of taking power, is already meeting with animal welfare groups, holding congressional hearings, and taking strong stances on animal research issues is unprecedented, experts say. “I am optimistic,” Baker says.You’ve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you — join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

Researchers Discover That Chimps Drum Rhythmically, Suggesting Human Musicality Originated in Our Last Common Ancestor Not only do chimpanzees maintain a rhythm while drumming on tree roots, but two subspecies use distinct tempos and techniques, according to a new study A new study finds chimpanzees drum against tree roots with rhythm, suggesting they share an evolutionary trait with humans passed down by a last common ancestor. DaFranzos via Pixabay Wild chimpanzees often drum their limbs against the large roots of giant trees, sending out loud, booming sounds that resonate through the rainforest. Previous research identified the behavior as a form of communication and demonstrated that the animals have individual drumming styles. Now, a new study published Friday in the journal Current Biology shows chimpanzees also follow distinct, regular and non-random rhythms—traits that are building blocks of human music. This suggests the origin of our own musicality may have originated in a last common ancestor with chimpanzees. “They’re actually drumming often with their feet, so they’re using their hands to hold onto those roots, and then they’re kind of dancing,” Catherine Hobaiter, a co-author of the study and a primatologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, tells NPR’s Jon Hamilton. “And sometimes they’re jumping between the roots and getting all of those different beat structures down, throwing a hand in if you want to get a little syncopated.”In the study, Hobaiter and her colleagues analyzed 371 drumming bouts produced by eastern and western chimpanzees in 11 communities across Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Senegal, Tanzania and Uganda. The drumming “had a predictability to it,” Hobaiter tells the Guardian’s Nicola Davis. “And when you’ve got predictability, you’ve got a really strong indicator that there’s rhythm there.” Though some earlier studies indicate that captive chimps can drum rhythmically, this new paper is the first to truly demonstrate that ability in wild chimpanzees, says Valérie Dufour, an animal cognition biologist at the University of Clermont Auvergne in France who did not participate in the research, to Science’s Rodrigo Pérez Ortega. “Showing that chimpanzees share some of the fundamental properties of human musical rhythm in their drumming is a really exciting step in understanding when and how we evolved this skill,” Hobaiter explains in a statement. “Our findings suggest that our ability to drum rhythmically may have existed long before we were human.” The team’s analyses revealed striking differences in drumming rhythm between the two subspecies: Western chimps used more regular intervals, while their eastern counterparts were more likely to alternate between faster and slower beats. The two groups also integrated the drumming into their vocalizations in different ways: Western chimps drummed more and faster, and they combined it into their vocalizations—known as pant-hoots—earlier than eastern chimps did. These contrasts might be linked to differences in social behaviors between the subspecies, researchers say. Eastern chimpanzees tend to be more aggressive, live in bigger groups and have more hierarchical societies than the more egalitarian western chimpanzees. The variations between their drumming styles might reflect differences in human language, reports National Geographic’s Olivia Ferrari.“This is the kind of science that wakes us up to the fact that every single population of chimpanzees is worth conserving and preserving,” Hobaiter tells National Geographic. “We’re starting to recognize that they might have cultures in their communication, in their rhythm, in their social behavior… if you lose a group, you lose the unique culture that goes with it.” In a similar way, two other recent papers are also shedding light on chimp behaviors that are uncannily close to human ones. A study published May 7 in Biology Letters suggests western chimpanzees often throw previously collected rocks against tree trunks as a form of communication. And other research published May 9 in Science Advances shows the primates communicate complex meaning by combining vocal sounds. Taken together with recent work detailing a headbanging sea lion that can keep a beat and a key linguistic pattern in whale song, the research suggests humans’ rhythm and language abilities might not be as unique as we once thought. “Humans are intrinsically rhythmic creatures,” Hobaiter tells BBC Science Focus’ Hatty Willmoth. “We have rhythm in our music and in our dance and in our song, but also in our conversations—and it’s a human universal, so it might be part of our evolutionary heritage.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

News Animals Wild chimpanzees give first aid to each other A long-term study in Uganda offers glimpses at the origins of human medicine Two chimpanzees groom each other. Chimps in Uganda’s Budongo Forest have also been observed treating each other’s injuries by licking, dabbing with leaves and other methods. E. Freymann By Martin J. Kernan 11 seconds ago For wounded chimpanzees, help sometimes comes in the form of first aid — care rendered not by humans but by other chimps. New research reveals the nature and prevalence of these rarely witnessed events. Thirty years of observations in Uganda’s Budongo Forest reveal that chimp-administered health care — both ape-to-ape care and self-care — happens frequently there, say primatologist Elodie Freymann of the University of Oxford and colleagues. She suspects these behaviors, occasionally glimpsed outside of Budongo, are widespread among chimps. Sign up for our newsletter We summarize the week's scientific breakthroughs every Thursday.