This article contains spoilers for The Last of Us season 2. Season 2 of The Last of Us was undeniably a huge swing, as was the video game it’s based on. The Last of Us Part II features the death of the first game’s protagonist early on and forces the player to play as his killer not only before the deed is done, but for about half of the game part way through the story. It’s a narrative about cycles of violence and the lengths that people will go to protect who they love, but it’s also an exercise in empathy. There’s a difference between embodying a character for hours at a time in a video game and watching a character do the same actions in a TV show. When you spend hours living and breathing and fighting for your life as a character, it’s easy to form an attachment to them, to prescribe our own ideas onto them as our morals inform theirs. Even though there’s not really anything the player can do to affect the overall outcome of the story in The Last of Us Part II, your playstyle is going to affect your experience. One player may try to sneak by the W.L.F. and Seraphite adversaries as Ellie, trying to kill as few people as possible. Another may go in knives and guns blazing, leaving an even larger trail of bodies in their wake. Neither method is “wrong,” but it is going to affect how you interpret the story and the characters as a player. Translating this story and its structure to television was never going to be easy. The first season of The Last of Us had the luxury of adapting a beginning, middle, and end from the story of the first game. Season 1 also had nine episodes to tell the story of a roughly 10-hour (give or take) game and its approximately two-hour DLC meaning that we got to spend close to the same amount of time with the characters in the show as players do in the game. Season 2, on the other hand, is only adapting part of a game that can take upwards of 24 hours to play through, and only had seven episodes to tell this part of the story.  A lot of criticisms people have shared surrounding season 2 of the show are valid. There are parts of the story, especially when Ellie (Bella Ramsey) and Dina (Isabela Merced) get to Seattle, that feel rushed. There are some character choices that are or may seem different from those that are made in the game. But arguably, the heart of The Last of Us Part II’s story is still here, even if this season missed the mark with some aspects. Of course Ellie’s Seattle arc is going to feel rushed when we only get three approximately hour-long episodes to cover it versus the close to eleven hours of gameplay Ellie’s Seattle arc gets in the game. We’re not going to be able to see how Ellie got all of the cuts and bruises that Dina is tending to in the season finale or watch her traverse Seattle in-depth – there’s simply not enough time.  It would have been great to get more time with Ellie and Dina in Seattle. But unfortunately, 13 or even 10 episodes for one season is a luxury that most studios don’t seem to want to afford in the streaming era. Even though The Last of Us co-showrunners Craig Mazin and Neil Druckmann have said that they chose to end the season at this specific point in the story and felt like seven episodes was enough to do so, I still don’t fault them entirely. Trying to do more with less feels more like a symptom of the state of TV and the industry as a whole than something to only blame The Last of Us writers for doing. At some point you get used to doing more with less and less. With the structure of season 2, Mazin says that they “considered everything.” They thought about interlacing the stories of Ellie and Abby, but ultimately realized that switching perspectives halfway through the story is “part of the genetics of how this story functions.” But now that means “we have to take risks as a television show, and HBO is backing us taking risks. But then again, we just did kill Pedro Pascal. Like [HBO] understands that this show is going to be a different show every season, which is a tricky thing to do when you’re a hit show. You keep asking people like, ‘I know you love this, we’re taking it away and giving you this now.’” Understandably not everyone has been on board with these changes. Season 2 of The Last of Us has a consistently lower IMDb score than season 1, and it’s hard to look through any form of social media without finding a mix of reactions from fans who are enjoying the story as it is and others who think that the writers have massacred their favorite characters. But at the same time, Mazin, Druckmann, and TLOU Part II co-writer Halley Gross clearly have a deep love for this story, even if their interpretation of certain character’s decisions doesn’t always align with the audience’s. The characters in the TV show are different than the characters in the game because they experience these events differently. In the show, Ellie has to sit in a hospital recovering for three months before she can even think about chasing Abby and her crew to Seattle. Setting aside that time for recovery is not necessarily something that a video game has to think about – a physical therapy level isn’t exactly something that players of a game like this are going to be excited about.  Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox! It’s not that this version of Ellie is less angry than she is in the game. She’s just had three months to practice burying her anger so it’s more palatable for others. She has to convince the hospital, and Gail (Catherine O’Hara), that she’s fit enough to be released. She has to try and convince the council that she’s fit enough to lead a group to Seattle for justice. She has to convince a pregnant Dina that no matter what happens while they’re in Seattle, that this is the morally right thing for them to do. Because we don’t spend 11-plus hours literally in Ellie’s shoes while watching the TV show, her grief has to be explored in different ways. It’s shown in the brief moment she plays the guitar while waiting for Dina to triangulate a route. Even though Ellie may not be throwing the guitar across the room, there’s still clearly anger mixed with the grief on her face as she plays her and Joel’s song. We see it when she lashes out at Jesse and chooses to go to the aquarium instead of following him to find Tommy. We see it when she screams out in pain in a hospital bed in Jackson. And we see it when Dina tends to her wounds. It’s not that she’s not angry or grieving, we just don’t get to see every single moment of it that we do in the game. And of course Ellie is going to tell Abby that she didn’t mean to hurt her friends and beg her to spare their lives. Abby just shot Jesse dead in front of her and is standing over Tommy with his life in her hands just as she did with Joel. Even if this isn’t exactly how Ellie reacts in the game, it’s a logical trauma response to finally seeing Abby again. Abby was able to kill Joel – someone Ellie looked up to and probably thought was unstoppable as most kids do with their parents in their youth. It makes sense that seeing her again would trigger this kind of response in Ellie too. It’s not that she doesn’t want to kill Abby in this moment – she’s just trying to keep her and her loved ones alive for as long as she can.  We saw her do something similar with David (Scott Shepherd) in season 1. She made herself as non-threatening as possible to get him to let his guard down and then proceeded to viciously attack him. Ellie isn’t a stranger to lying and manipulating to get what she wants, even in stressful circumstances. Why should this be any different? Mazin doesn’t deny that they took some risks with season 2, admitting to The Hollywood Reporter that “I don’t think television is supposed to work like this. We’re clearly breaking quite a few rules, and I love that. And I love it because that is the point. This is not something we’re doing as a gimmick.” Mazin argues that The Last of Us forces us to interrogate what we believe about heroes and villains and see the flaws in that kind of black and white thinking, and he knows that this is “a challenging thing to keep track of emotionally” and that people are going to feel provoked by it. “But part of this story,” he says, “is about examining why we’re so comfortable with following one person’s point of view about everything.” The Last of Us season 2 was never going to be exactly like the game, and that’s okay! When you’ve already made a story that resonates with so many people, it’s not going to be easy to recreate that story in another medium – especially in the streaming era when shows don’t always know if they’re going to be able to get all the seasons they want to tell the story. Time is a luxury that television doesn’t always have. The show may not have hit a home run with every swing they took, but overall the story still lands. The heart of the game and its story of grief and loss and love and violence are still there. Hopefully fans won’t give up on the show just yet and trust that the show’s writers really do care about this story enough to do it justice.

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:

News Animals Genetics might save the rare, elusive saola — if it’s not already extinct Environmental DNA could help scientists search for the large deerlike mammals in Southeast Asia The saola “Martha” was captured in Laos in 1996 and survived for a few weeks in a menagerie. She is the only living saola ever seen by Western scientists. World Wildlife Fund By Tom Metcalfe 2 hours ago It’s not looking good for the saola. If it still exists, it is one of the world’s rarest large mammals — a deerlike creature from the mountainous rainforests of Vietnam and Laos that’s been called “Asia’s unicorn” because of its scarcity. But the last living saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis) was seen in 2013, in photographs from a motion-triggered trail camera. Even hopeful experts think there are now fewer than 100 still alive. “That number is extremely optimistic,” says University of Copenhagen wildlife geneticist Rasmus Heller. “The real number is probably much lower … and it’s possible that there are actually zero.” Sign up for our newsletter We summarize the week's scientific breakthroughs every Thursday.

OpinionMay 26, 20257 min readScientific Strategies to Help Kids Meet the Challenges of a Cruel WorldResearch has shown ways parents can help children cope with the stressors of modern lifeBy Clara Moskowitz Mary Long/Getty ImagesBetween climate change, economic anxiety and political turmoil, the world can feel like a scary place, especially for kids. Today’s young people have already been through a deadly global pandemic, they regularly drill to prepare for school shootings, and they must learn to navigate an age of misinformation and danger online. These stressors seem to be taking a toll; measurements show anxiety and sleep deprivation among adolescents are rising, and even teen suicide attempts are increasing.To parents, the situation can feel overwhelming. The good news is, there’s a lot parents can do to help their kids meet the challenges of the world we live in, writes parenting journalist (and frequent Scientific American contributor) Melinda Wenner Moyer. In her new book Hello, Cruel World! Science-Based Strategies for Raising Terrific Kids in Terrifying Times (Penguin Random House, May 2025) Moyer surveys scientific research on kids’ mental health and ways to improve it.Moyer divides her book into three sections focused on evidence-backed tips for helping young people cope with challenges, connect to others, and cultivate strong characters. Scientific American spoke to her about how to shield kids from online misinformation, nurture self-compassion and get your children to open up with you.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.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]The concept of the book, this “cruel world,” resonates so much with me as a parent, and I'm sure with so many people. Tell me a bit more about how you started feeling like the world is becoming a really tough place for kids.I have had this growing anxiety and angst as a parent, just thinking about the world that my kids were coming into and that they were going to inherit from us. There are so many things looming, you know, climate change and disinformation. I was also getting so many comments from parents saying, “I'm just so scared on behalf of my kids, and I don't know what I can do to prepare them and help them get them ready for this world that we're going to hand them.” And I'm always trying to think of solutions and trying to figure out ways to reassure both myself and my readers. We do have some control here. And so I started researching, what are the key skills that we know can help kids get through all this? I was really trying to come up with concrete strategies that I could communicate to parents to help them feel a little less worried, a little more in control, and feel like they really could do something as parents, because I think parenting is a form of activism. We are raising the next generation of kids, and through our parenting, we can change the world.In what specific ways do you think there are challenges that kids are facing today that previous generations haven't really had to face before?We know from the research that there are a lot of tweens and teens who are struggling with mental health issues. Whether or not you think that the statistics are as bad as they seem, there seems to be a signal there that we should pay attention to. And so a big part of the book is about: How can we help kids cope? What are the things we can do to help them manage their emotions in healthy ways, rather than unhealthy ways?Another big one is technology. Every generation panics about technology, and so the question is, well, how much different is our situation today than it was when the TV came out, or the printing press—these were all big changes at the time. But I think this is certainly the first generation where kids have a handheld connection to technology, potentially at all times. That does feel momentous.One message in the book that really spoke to me was that helping our kids is also about helping ourselves—that we can’t teach kids things like self-compassion, or balancing work and leisure, or all these other lessons, until we can embody them ourselves.I do think a really overlooked aspect of child health and development is: How are the parents doing? What’s their mental health like? What are the skills that they have or don't have? Because we are teaching our kids so much through the choices we make. You know, are we beating ourselves up when we burn dinner? Are we constantly putting ourselves down? Our kids are learning from that and thinking, okay, I should be doing this too. I think we do overlook the role of our own well-being. This is really important because our kids are watching us.I want to be careful too: I’m not saying this to put more pressure on parents. We already have so many expectations of ourselves to ensure that our kids are succeeding at everything they do, that they're comfortable all the time, that they’re protected all the time, that they’re happy all the time. We have these expectations about what we should be doing as parents that are both unrealistic and unhelpful. When we overprotect, when we over-coddle, that actually undermines the development of key skills for them. Problem solving and resilience and emotional regulation, these are all skills that kids learn through practice. They need to be sad, they need to be disappointed and frustrated. They need to fail and experience what that is and understand that that’s part of the process of learning. So a lot of what I'm trying to do is give parents permission to step back a little bit and to relax.You write in the book a lot about connection—how a strong connection between parents and kids is important for their mental health and is protective against some of the things we worry about, such as bad influences from social media. How do you make sure your connection is strong?If you're worried you’re not connecting enough with your kids, then there are things you can do. I was really surprised at the power of listening to our kids—like really listening. I think we hear a lot about talking to your kids. And I think sometimes that can be misinterpreted as, lecture to your kids, you know, tell them not to do this and not to do that, and set rules and communicate the rules. But it’s also really listening to them in a respectful way, and being willing to consider their perspective, which you may not always agree with.And when they open up to you, drop everything. It’s impossible sometimes, but when they are opening up to you, even if it’s in a very inconvenient time, try to allow it and stop what you’re doing. Kids often like to connect right before bedtime, which is the most frustrating time ever, right? But we should really allow the connection to happen on their terms, because that’s a form of giving our kids some autonomy. If you’re getting from your kids some willingness to be vulnerable with you, I think that that is a really good sign.There’s a relationship between feeling listened to and being willing to be self-reflective and also intellectually humble, which I think is really interesting. So when we feel heard, when we feel safe and not threatened, we’re much more willing to consider what we don’t know, and to acknowledge uncertainty within ourselves.What can parents do if we’re worried about the information, the bad actors, the scary, negative stuff that our kids are coming across online? What can we do to help them tell the difference between misinformation, lies and reality online?There’s very little media literacy education happening in schools. It really helps if the parent has some of those skills already, because then they can model media literacy and information literacy a little better for kids. So I encourage parents to try to learn about media literacy.One thing that every media literacy expert said to me was to ask your kids open-ended questions about what they’re seeing and hearing in the media. It’s such a beautifully simple approach, but apparently it’s very, very powerful. So this could be anything, like with little kids, asking: What do you like about this show? Or why do you think that character just did what they did? It could also involve talking about how movies and cartoons are made. And when kids get older, you can ask even bigger questions, like: Who made this? Why was it made? Why is it being presented this way? What or who is missing from this? Who might benefit from this? Who might be harmed by it? Getting kids to think about these big-picture questions about the media can be super helpful in fostering this sort of curiosity and this questioning perspective in kids.These are some really wonderful tips, and I’m going to try to put them into practice. As a parent, I'm always reading and trying to learn how to be the best parent I can be. But sometimes I wonder how much it really matters what we do and how we parent. How much of who our kids are and who they’re going to turn out to be, is completely out of our control anyway?People still debate this. We know genetics, of course, really matter. We know that temperament and personality, these are not things that we’re probably going to be able to shift in our kids. But we also do know that a lot of what we’re passing on to our kids is through the relationships we build with them, through the conversations we’re having with them to help them understand how the world works, to help them understand what they can do to build stronger relationships, how they can interact with people. They really do learn a lot from our modeling, in terms of how to behave, how to manage conflict, how to think about different situations. We know that there are a lot of skills that kids learn through observing others, through the conversations they have with others, through the opportunities they’re given to develop skills.A big example is resilience. We know that kids who are overprotected, prevented from failing, from experiencing challenges, that those are kids who are going to grow up not knowing how to problem solve and not knowing how to deal with feelings of frustration. They haven’t been given opportunities to develop emotional regulation skills and they will really suffer for that when they get older. So I feel like we do have a lot of power in terms of the perspective that we help kids develop about the world, about why it looks the way it does. We can give them the opportunities at a young age to develop skills that will serve them the rest of their lives.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

The last time we talked about 23andMe’s bankruptcy sale, we suggested you might want to delete your genetic data from the site, since we didn’t know who would end up owning it. Now, a buyer has been announced, and they’re promising to “prioritize the privacy, security and ethical use” of customer data and to keep offering the company’s services uninterrupted. This is all—probably—good news. I'm feeling cautiously optimistic, anyway.Regeneron will be 23andMe’s new owner23andMe’s new buyer, paying $256 million for the company’s assets, is Regeneron. Regeneron is a biotech company perhaps best known for developing an antibody treatment for COVID early in the pandemic. (Donald Trump was given a dose when he first came down with the virus.) That treatment never made it all the way to market, but the company does market other antibody- and protein-based treatments for conditions like Ebola virus, genetic disorders, and cancers. Regeneron’s website states that they “are shaping the next frontier of medicine with data-powered insights from the Regeneron Genetics Center® and pioneering genetic medicine platforms, enabling us to identify innovative targets and complementary approaches to potentially treat or cure diseases.” That explains why they’re interested in 23andMe, since it provides a trove of genetic data. Many 23andMe users had also signed up to provide more of their personal medical information for research purposes (this was a separate thing that you would have had to opt in to provide). Regeneron says they plan to “continue all consumer genome services uninterrupted,” rather than shut down the company. Lemonaid health, also owned by 23andMe, is not included in the sale.What this means for your data and privacyImportantly, Regeneron says they will respect the company’s privacy policy (“and applicable laws”) and the 23andMe press release also says that Regeneron will not be making any changes to the privacy policy. The sale, which still needs to be approved by a bankruptcy court, will also include a court-appointed “consumer privacy ombudsman” whose job is to make sure that everyone’s data is treated appropriately. Regeneron says that they’re ready to work with this ombudsman and will detail all their privacy-related plans. While we don’t yet know what the future holds, this all has me tentatively optimistic. Yes, a corporation has your data and intends to profit from it; but that was also true of 23andMe in its heyday. The policies about privacy and consent that you agreed to when contributing your data will still be in effect. The 23andMe community seems to be cautiously optimistic. In a r/23andme Reddit thread about the sale, one redditor, who identifies themselves as an academic biomedical researcher, says “I would rather [Regeneron] have my data than an insurance provider or just random [venture capitalist].” Another redditor says, “So there really is not [a] best case scenario here, there's just ‘wait and see’ and bad. And this is more of a ‘wait and see’ than a bad.” And another says “I know people side eye big pharma (rightfully in most circumstances) but this is a much better outcome than many other situations.” 

James Gentz has seen birds aplenty on his East Texas rice-and-crawfish farm: snow geese and pintails, spoonbills and teal. The whooping crane couple, though, he found “magnificent.” These endangered, long-necked behemoths arrived in 2021 and set to building a nest amid his flooded fields. “I just loved to see them,” Gentz says. Not every farmer is thrilled to host birds. Some worry about the spread of avian flu, others are concerned that the birds will eat too much of their valuable crops. But as an unstable climate delivers too little water, careening temperatures and chaotic storms, the fates of human food production and birds are ever more linked—with the same climate anomalies that harm birds hurting agriculture too. In some places, farmer cooperation is critical to the continued existence of whooping cranes and other wetland-dependent waterbird species, close to one-third of which are experiencing declines. Numbers of waterfowl (think ducks and geese) have crashed by 20 percent since 2014, and long-legged wading shorebirds like sandpipers have suffered steep population losses. Conservation-minded biologists, nonprofits, government agencies, and farmers themselves are amping up efforts to ensure that each species survives and thrives. With federal support in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, their work is more important (and threatened) than ever. Their collaborations, be they domestic or international, are highly specific, because different regions support different kinds of agriculture—grasslands, or deep or shallow wetlands, for example, favored by different kinds of birds. Key to the efforts is making it financially worthwhile for farmers to keep—or tweak—practices to meet bird forage and habitat needs. Traditional crawfish-and-rice farms in Louisiana, as well as in Gentz’s corner of Texas, mimic natural freshwater wetlands that are being lost to saltwater intrusion from sea level rise. Rice grows in fields that are flooded to keep weeds down; fields are drained for harvest by fall. They are then re-flooded to cover crawfish burrowed in the mud; these are harvested in early spring—and the cycle begins again. That second flooding coincides with fall migration—a genetic and learned behavior that determines where birds fly and when—and it lures massive numbers of egrets, herons, bitterns, and storks that dine on the crustaceans as well as on tadpoles, fish, and insects in the water. On a biodiverse crawfish-and-rice farm, “you can see 30, 40, 50 species of birds, amphibians, reptiles, everything,” says Elijah Wojohn, a shorebird conservation biologist at nonprofit Manomet Conservation Sciences in Massachusetts. In contrast, if farmers switch to less water-intensive corn and soybean production in response to climate pressures, “you’ll see raccoons, deer, crows, that’s about it.” Wojohn often relies on word-of-mouth to hook farmers on conservation; one learned to spot whimbrel, with their large, curved bills, got “fired up” about them and told all his farmer friends. Such farmer-to-farmer dialogue is how you change things among this sometimes change-averse group, Wojohn says. In the Mississippi Delta and in California, where rice is generally grown without crustaceans, conservation organizations like Ducks Unlimited have long boosted farmers’ income and staying power by helping them get paid to flood fields in winter for hunters. This attracts overwintering ducks and geese—considered an extra “crop”—that gobble leftover rice and pond plants; the birds also help to decompose rice stalks so farmers don’t have to remove them. Ducks Unlimited’s goal is simple, says director of conservation innovation Scott Manley: Keep rice farmers farming rice. This is especially important as a changing climate makes that harder. 2024 saw a huge push, with the organization conserving 1 million acres for waterfowl. Some strategies can backfire. In Central New York, where dwindling winter ice has seen waterfowl lingering past their habitual migration times, wildlife managers and land trusts are buying less productive farmland to plant with native grasses; these give migratory fuel to ducks when not much else is growing. But there’s potential for this to produce too many birds for the land available back in their breeding areas, says Andrew Dixon, director of science and conservation at the Mohamed Bin Zayed Raptor Conservation Fund in Abu Dhabi, and coauthor of an article about the genetics of bird migration in the 2024 Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. This can damage ecosystems meant to serve them. Recently, conservation efforts spanning continents and thousands of miles have sprung up. One seeks to protect buff-breasted sandpipers. As they migrate 18,000 miles to and from the High Arctic where they nest, the birds experience extreme hunger—hyperphagia—that compels them to voraciously devour insects in short grasses where the bugs proliferate. But many stops along the birds’ round-trip route are threatened. There are water shortages affecting agriculture in Texas, where the birds forage at turf grass farms; grassland loss and degradation in Paraguay; and in Colombia, conversion of forage lands to exotic grasses and rice paddies these birds cannot use. Conservationists say it’s critical to protect habitat for “buffies” all along their route, and to ensure that the winters these small shorebirds spend around Uruguay’s coastal lagoons are a food fiesta. To that end, Manomet conservation specialist Joaquín Aldabe, in partnership with Uruguay’s agriculture ministry, has so far taught 40 local ranchers how to improve their cattle grazing practices. Rotationally moving the animals from pasture to pasture means grasses stay the right length for insects to flourish. There are no easy fixes in the North American northwest, where bird conservation is in crisis. Extreme drought is causing breeding grounds, molting spots, and migration stopover sites to vanish. It is also endangering the livelihoods of farmers, who feel the push to sell land to developers. From Southern Oregon to Central California, conservation allies have provided monetary incentives for water-strapped grain farmers to leave behind harvest debris to improve survivability for the 1 billion birds that pass through every year, and for ranchers to flood-irrigate unused pastures. One treacherous leg of the northwest migration route is the parched Klamath Basin of Oregon and California. For three recent years, “we saw no migrating birds. I mean, the peak count was zero,” says John Vradenburg, supervisory biologist of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. He and myriad private, public, and Indigenous partners are working to conjure more water for the basin’s human and avian denizens, as perennial wetlands become seasonal wetlands, seasonal wetlands transition to temporary wetlands, and temporary wetlands turn to arid lands. Taking down four power dams and one levee has stretched the Klamath River’s water across the landscape, creating new streams and connecting farm fields to long-separated wetlands. But making the most of this requires expansive thinking. Wetland restoration—now endangered by loss of funding from the current administration—would help drought-afflicted farmers by keeping water tables high. But what if farmers could also receive extra money for their businesses via eco-credits, akin to carbon credits, for the work those wetlands do to filter-clean farm runoff? And what if wetlands could function as aquaculture incubators for juvenile fish, before stocking rivers? Klamath tribes are invested in restoring endangered c’waam and koptu sucker fish, and this could help them achieve that goal. As birds’ traditional resting and nesting spots become inhospitable, a more sobering question is whether improvements can happen rapidly enough. The blistering pace of climate change gives little chance for species to genetically adapt, although some are changing their behaviors. That means that the work of conservationists to find and secure adequate, supportive farmland and rangeland as the birds seek out new routes has become a sprint against time. This story originally appeared at Knowable Magazine. Lela Nargi, Knowable Magazine Knowable Magazine explores the real-world significance of scholarly work through a journalistic lens. 0 Comments