Targeting the immune system to fight cancer has been in the works for over a decade, and thanks to its precise, personalized approach, it's poised to shape the future of oncology. As our understanding of how immunotherapy can be used against cancer grows, scientists are now reconsidering existing drugs, particularly those that affect the immune system, for their potential role in cancer treatment.Alongside well-established medications like aspirin, showing potential to help the immune system combat cancer, researchers are now turning their attention to antidepressants — and the results are looking promising.A team from UCLA recently published a study in Cell showing how SSRIs, a widely prescribed class of antidepressants, can help the immune system suppress tumor growth across various cancer types. So instead of developing entirely new drugs, could the key lie in repurposing ones we already have?“These drugs have been widely and safely used to treat depression for decades, so repurposing them for cancer would be a lot easier than developing an entirely new therapy,” said senior study author Lili Yang, a member of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCLA, in a press statement.The Role of AntidepressantsSSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, work by increasing levels of serotonin, a neurotransmitter associated with mood and focus, and by blocking the serotonin transporter (SERT), which typically regulates how much serotonin is available outside our cells. In people with depression, serotonin levels in the brain drop significantly — a problem that SSRIs like fluoxetine (Prozac), citalopram (Celexa), and sertraline (Zoloft) help to address.But serotonin isn’t just about mood. Only about 5 percent of the body’s serotonin is made in the brain. The rest acts as a signaling molecule in many essential bodily functions, including digestion — and, as recent research suggests, immune system regulation.While earlier lab studies hinted that serotonin might help stimulate T-cells, the immune system’s front-line soldiers, its precise role and potential in immunoregulation remained unclear. That is, until now.Antidepressants and Anti-Tumor PotentialBefore studying SSRIs, the UCLA team had explored another class of antidepressants called MAO inhibitors (MAOIs), which also increased serotonin levels by blocking an enzyme known as MAO-A. These drugs showed anti-tumor potential, but due to their higher risk of side effects, researchers shifted their focus to SSRIs.“SERT made for an especially attractive target because the drugs that act on it — SSRIs — are widely used with minimal side effects,” said Bo Li, the study’s first author, in the news release. By using SSRIs to boost serotonin availability, researchers aimed to outmaneuver one of cancer’s suggested strategies: depriving immune cells of the serotonin they need to function effectively.The results were encouraging. In both mouse and human tumor models of melanoma, breast, prostate, colon, and bladder cancers, SSRI treatment shrank tumors by over 50 precent. The key, according to Yang, was “increasing their access to serotonin,” which in turn enhanced the T-cells' ability to attack.Combining with Existing Cancer TreatmentsThe team also tested whether combining SSRIs with existing cancer treatments could offer even better results. The answer was yes. In follow-up experiments, all mice with melanoma or colon cancer that received both an SSRI and immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy, a treatment designed to overcome the immune-suppressing nature of tumors, experienced significantly reduced tumor sizes.“Immune checkpoint blockades are effective in fewer than 25 percent of patients,” said study co-author James Elsten-Brown in the press release. “If a safe, widely available drug like an SSRI could make these therapies more effective, it would be hugely impactful.”Using therapies already deemed safe means fewer regulatory hurdles and faster clinical use.“Studies estimate the bench-to-bedside pipeline for new cancer therapies costs an average of $1.5 billion,” Yang said. “When you compare this to the estimated $300 million cost to repurpose FDA-approved drugs, it’s clear why this approach has so much potential.”This article is not offering medical advice and should be used for informational purposes only.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:UCLA Broad Stem Cell Research Center: Drug commonly used as antidepressant helps fight cancer in miceHaving worked as a biomedical research assistant in labs across three countries, Jenny excels at translating complex scientific concepts – ranging from medical breakthroughs and pharmacological discoveries to the latest in nutrition – into engaging, accessible content. Her interests extend to topics such as human evolution, psychology, and quirky animal stories. When she’s not immersed in a popular science book, you’ll find her catching waves or cruising around Vancouver Island on her longboard.

This week, for the respective editions of their newsletters, Kids Today and User Friendly, senior correspondents Anna North and Adam Clark Estes have a chat about something that’s occupying both of them as journalists and as parents of young kids: How AI will shape the lives of the next generation?Anna North: Hi Adam! Excited to chat about AI and kids! In addition to reporting on kids for work, I also have a 7-year-old (who is home sick today and watching Amphibia right now, so might interrupt), and a 2-year-old (who is not currently home sick, yay!).Adam Clark Estes: Hey Anna! My kid is not yet 2, but as they say, the days are long, but the years are short. I feel like I’ll be meeting her AI friends in no time. Anna: Ha! So speaking of which, should we kick this off by talking a little bit about our hopes and fears for our kids growing up in the age of AI? I do feel like there’s a lot to be hopeful about: I’m excited that my kids will grow up in a time when we can use AI to develop new drugs and decode elephant language (although maybe some of those AI tools are more properly called machine learning?). My biggest fear is that my kids won’t see the point of learning certain skills, like writing and math, because AI can do those tasks for them. I certainly worry about AI taking jobs, too, but that’s a ways away for my kids.RelatedShould schools lock up kids’ phones?Adam: I’m actually not that worried about my kid having AI friends. She probably will! I just hope that she doesn’t spend too much time with them or too much time with AI-powered technology in general. I hope we enter this new AI era together and learn how these tools can make our lives better, richer, and more interesting. It reminds me of how the internet came of age around the same time I did, but my parents seemed too afraid to figure it out at the time. I hope I can be brave. Anna: My dad was actually an internet early adopter, and so we did enter that era together, which was sweet. We used to go to Doctor Who chatrooms — I remember once listing “our” age as “43 and 12.” That was nice for me because 1) I learned to use a computer and 2) I learned to be curious and not fearful around new technologies. Except I am a little fearful around AI! Maybe I have to channel that spirit of curiosity a little more when I’m with my kids.A friend of mine was telling me her district is rolling out AI tools potentially in kindergarten, so it starts young.Adam: And I keep seeing ads for AI-equipped stuffed animals. AI is still such a buzzword, but I do think we’re starting to see how it really will take over technology as we know it. I always say that it’s just the next iteration of the software that’s already in everything. So, of course, it’s going to be in classrooms — not just for cheating purposes, either.Anna: Cheating using AI is less of an issue for little kids because they’re not doing much of their work on computers yet. The AI tools I’ve seen proposed for K-6 are like this AI-powered reading coach, which seems less vulnerable to cheating than, say, ChatGPT. I’ve definitely heard people say that AI could potentially offer more personalized tutoring one day, which could be positive since individual instruction is really beneficial, but public school classes are often too large to offer much of it. That idea doesn’t freak me out too much, although, of course, there are questions around how reliable and accurate AI tools are.My older kid is in first grade, and at his school, there’s a lot of talk about the role of AI in math. The argument I’ve heard is very similar to what we were taught about calculators, honestly: that these tools will be able to do a lot of simple operations for us, so kids should be able to think intuitively about numbers.I don’t really think we’ll return to oral exams, but we will have to reconsider what education looks like in a world that runs on AI.Adam: I’m also curious about how AI simply changes how schools work. Like, if AI makes it too easy to cheat when essay-writing, what will teachers assign instead? And what will they grade? I don’t really think we’ll return to oral exams, but we will have to reconsider what education looks like in a world that runs on AI.Anna: I do think there’s a shift to more in-class tests and assignments, which can cause its own stress. I also wonder if there’s just going to be a shift toward developing a different set of skills, if writing just becomes less important. We already see kids and young people consuming less text — I wouldn’t be shocked if there was more emphasis in the coming years on oral presentation or audio and visual production skills. That bums me out as a writer, but maybe it’s what Plato would’ve wanted? I do try to remember that people have always been skeptical of new technology (even written language), and some of the anxieties we’re experiencing now are thousands of years old.I wouldn’t be shocked if there was more emphasis in the coming years on oral presentation or audio and visual production skills.Adam: And some look like instant replays of anxieties from just a decade or two ago. Every time a new technology or medium comes along, there’s a collective freakout that it’s destroying the youth. This is just as true for social media as it was for TV, video games, comic books, and even radio. I think this will be true of AI in social settings, too. It’s already possible to have an AI friend through apps like Replika or Kindroid. I wasn’t kidding about the AI stuffed animals, either. There’s one called Grok that’s designed — by Grimes of all people — for ages 3 and up. Kids can ask it questions, and the AI will tell them things, like a futuristic Teddy Ruxpin, except Teddy Ruxpin had a cassette tape in his belly that parents could listen to and know what the stuffed bear would say. I have no idea what AI will be telling our kids!I’ve seen people call this the end of the imaginary friend. I actually think it’s just the beginning of something new. What that is, I can’t imagine. At least not yet. Anna: It’s funny to me because Teddy Ruxpin was famously creepy! The social/play aspect of AI is super-interesting. I’m not worried about AI killing imaginary friends — kids will make friends with a can of tomato paste, and I don’t think you can destroy their social creativity that easily.My biggest concern around AI friends right now is safety — there are already lawsuits alleging that chatbots nudged kids toward violence or self-harm. Do you know what guardrails there are in place? Adam: My general feeling about guardrails is that, no matter how many there are, technology finds a way to leap over them. YouTube, for instance, has long struggled with how to make sure parents can steer their children to safe, age-appropriate content, but kids inevitably find themselves sucked down a rabbit hole of uncanny algorithmically generated videos. Throwing an infinite supply of AI-generated content into the mix won’t help, so I think parents will have to be vigilant about triple-checking what their kids are watching or playing with.There was a Pew study earlier this year that said about a quarter of all teens had tried ChatGPT for schoolwork. That number had doubled in a year.So if you assume that guardrails aren’t there or won’t work and that kids are going to try some kind of AI tool eventually, where does that leave parents? To be honest, I think we should all do what your dad did with you: Hang out in the proverbial chatrooms together. Talk to the chatbots together. Play with the AI toys together. Learn about this new technology along with your kids and help them learn when to put them away.I think we should all do what your dad did with you: Hang out in the proverbial chatrooms together. Talk to the chatbots together. Play with the AI toys together.Anna: I’m sure my dad will appreciate this endorsement of his parenting! You’re not alone, though. Andrew Przybylski, an Oxford professor I think we’ve talked about who studies phones and kids, talks about introducing his children to smartphones the way you would teach a kid to ride a bike: It’s a tool. It has hazards but also uses. It can be fun, and it’s a basic part of life. Maybe the same is true of AI?This conversation is sort of making me think I need to use AI more with my kids, which is not where I expected to end up. Adam: It’s important to point out that we’re mostly talking about generative AI here, and chatbots. There are also image and video generators. These all have obvious applications for kids in schools, for cheating and learning. But we haven’t even gotten into what the next generation of AI will impact our kids’ lives — things like AI agents that can use computers themselves or the much feared artificial general intelligence that can theoretically do anything. That future is a lot harder for me to comprehend right now.Anna: Yeah, I think there’s a lot about the next 10 or 15 years, both in AI and just in our kids’ lives generally, that’s hard to wrap one’s head around. My husband and I always joke about our children going to college on the moon, but I think it’s just a way of expressing the uncertainty that’s always there when you try to project too far out.See More:

Most people think of urban open spaces in terms of grand parks—Chicago’s Millennium Park or New York’s Central Park or San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park. These are our iconic parks—our sublime spaces. They serve as the “lungs” of our cities, and they certainly steal our hearts. These spaces are not locked behind gates but are stages where our own lives play out and memories are created, full of movement and reflection and joy.  There are more modest spaces in our cities, though, that are just as important to our lives—the thresholds and courtyards and pocket parks. They’re the places where we bump into our neighbors to walk our dogs or read on a bench in an environment where nature takes over. They are often unheralded like a great Olmsted Park, but always full of potential for true placemaking to begin.   My father, Edwin Smith was director of parks and recreation for the City of Eugene, Oregon and he knew this. He served for more than 30 years and was responsible for the design and development of 41 parks and greenways in and around the city. His work had a profound impact on me as a future architect. More to the point, his work and vision quietly enhanced the lives of so many people in the community as their access to parks was interwoven into their lives.   Westmoreland Park is one of Eugene’s centerpiece parks and is a great example. Its gentle slopes and lush lawns support stands of mature cedars and redwoods, not to mention Douglas firs, hemlocks, spruces, and the Oregon white oak. Even if you don’t know all those trees by sight, you know Westmoreland Park if you live in Eugene, and you know that it offers something for almost every active resident. I think that’s the importance of a well-designed space—it invites and it responds.   Living ribbon of connection  Responsiveness is a word worth pausing on for a moment. It’s the entire reason for design—architectural, urban, or otherwise—and it’s one of the hallmarks of placemaking.  My firm, MG2, recently envisioned design for an attainable housing project in Irvine, California, that was meant to respond to a specific housing challenge in a rapidly changing part of the state. It isn’t a monolith. It is, instead, what we think of as a living ribbon of connection—a continuous path that links breezeways, community gardens, play areas, and shared courtyards woven throughout the residential units. It is not simply a circulation route. It is a spine, and just like our spines, everything it touches depends upon it for structure. But more importantly, this isn’t just a collection of amenities. It is a social ecosystem. The layout fosters degrees of interaction—private balconies that open into semi-private courtyards, which in turn flow into cooperative gardens and fully public gathering spaces. Residents can choose solitude, casual interaction, or spirited communal activity—each space encouraging a different rhythm of human engagement. Children play while parents share meals. Strangers become neighbors over garden beds. This is architecture as social infrastructure.  To reimagine open space is not to think bigger—it is to think deeper. To look between, beneath, beyond. It is to ask: How do we shape space to be responsive? How do we design for encounter, for joy, for the unplanned but meaningful moments of connection?  Let us not treat the spaces between buildings as voids. Let us see them as vessels—of life, of community, of possibility. Let us design not just for shelter, but for spirit. Let us reimagine open spaces.  Mitch Smith AIA, LEED AP is the CEO and chairman of MG2, an affiliate of Colliers Engineering & Design. 

Back to work Trump admin lifts hold on offshore wind farm, doesn’t explain why Reasons for the hold were never backed up, and nobody's explaining why it ended. John Timmer – May 20, 2025 1:03 pm | 77 Credit: glegorly Credit: glegorly Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more On Monday, the developer of a large offshore wind farm being built off the coast of New York announced that the federal government had lifted a hold it had placed on the project roughly a month ago. The entire process has been shrouded in mystery. The government never fully enunciated its justification for the hold and hasn't yet commented on the fact that it had been lifted, although there is some hint that it was coupled to a reconsideration of a cancelled natural gas pipeline. Empire Wind is a large project being built off the southeast shore of Long Island by Equinor, a Norwegian energy company. The first of two phases, Empire Wind 1, will have an 800 MW capacity and has already received permitting and environmental approval. Equinor had started construction of the foundations for the towers that would hold the wind turbines and onshore facilities that would support this and future offshore projects. All that changed in mid-April when Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum announced via a social media post that the approval for Empire Wind had been rushed and his department would be reviewing it. A Fox News article published a few days later suggests that a review by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "found the Empire Wind approval process relied on rushed, outdated, and incomplete scientific and environmental analysis." But nobody else has indicated that any such report exists, despite requests from the press. Meanwhile, Equinor was given no indication of how long the project would be on hold, even as it took on large expenses due to its idled workers and equipment. On Monday, however, the company announced that the hold had been lifted and construction would resume. But as with the hold itself, the reasons for its end remain mysterious. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management page for the project was only updated with a new letter on Tuesday. That letter indicates a review of its approval is ongoing, but construction can resume during the review. The Department of the Interior has not addressed the change and has not responded to a request for comment. A post by Interior Secretary Burgum doesn't mention Empire Wind but does suggest the governor of New York will approve a pipeline: "I am encouraged by Governor Hochul’s comments about her willingness to move forward on critical pipeline capacity." That suggests there was a deal that allowed Empire Wind to resume construction in return for a pipeline for fossil fuels. The New York Times suggests that this is a reference to the proposed Constitution Pipeline, which was planned to move natural gas from Pennsylvania to eastern New York but was cancelled in 2020 due to state opposition. However, Governor Kathy Hochul has not commented about a willingness to move forward with any pipelines. Instead, Hochul's statement on Empire Wind is very vague, saying that she "reaffirmed that New York will work with the Administration and private entities on new energy projects that meet the legal requirements under New York law." So while it's good news that construction on Empire Wind has restarted, the whole process has been problematic, driven by apparently arbitrary decisions that the government has refused to justify. John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 77 Comments

As we move through the year, interior designers are making thoughtful choices about which trends to embrace and which to leave behind. “No Buy 2025" movements are gaining traction across social media, and sustainability becomes ever more important. So, we asked designers which items they're deliberately leaving off their shopping lists this year—and what they're investing in instead. Their answers reveal a collective shift toward authenticity, longevity, and personal expression over fleeting trends and mass-produced pieces. Here's what designers are saying "no" to this season.Fast FurnitureDesigners are unanimously turning away from poorly constructed, mass-produced pieces that lack staying power."The trend towards turning to 'fast furniture' to impulsively replicate every viral look is one I don't love," says Kathy Kuo, founder of Kathy Kuo Home. "My personal ethos is all about choosing timeless, well-made, and sustainable furniture and decor pieces, rather than the 'fast', disposable pieces."Philip Thomas Vanderford of Studio Thomas James agrees: "I'm consciously moving away from pieces that feel generic or purely utilitarian,” he says. “'Filler furniture'—those uninspired consoles, mass-produced side chairs, and forgettable accent tables—simply don't belong in well-curated homes."Instead: Invest in quality pieces with character and provenance. Look for artisan-made or vintage furniture that tells a story and will stand the test of time.Bouclé OverloadFollowTheFlow//Getty ImagesDesigners are now reconsidering the nubby texture that dominated interiors for years."This may not be a popular opinion but anything in a cream or white colored bouclé fabric is outdated to me these days and I have stopped sourcing that look for projects," says Aimee Meisgeier of AM Interior Design.Jen Baxter of Baxter Hill Interiors is skeptical of things that feel algorithmically overexposed, like scalloped detailing and white bouclé. “If it's everywhere now, there's a good chance we'll be cringing at it in 18 months,” she says.Instead: Meisgeier suggests alternatives like "sterling or mohair. Those fabrics also provide a beautiful warm and inviting texture but have not been so overused that they are now oversaturated in the design world."Matching Furniture SetsInstead of buying a matching set, some designers now prefer more eclectic, collected spaces.For Kerith Flynn, principal and founder of Margali & Flynn Designs, "buying full living or bedroom sets can make a room feel staged or uninspired."Instead: Flynn recommends you "mix materials and styles, like pairing a modern sofa with an antique side table, to create a more organic, collected look."Non-functional PiecesDesigners are tired of seeing spaces that sacrifice function for Instagram appeal.Whats out? "Design that's only made for the Instagram grid," interior designer Lori Evans tells us. "I'm talking about the kind of things that look great in the photo but don't really make sense to actually live with. A good example would be a sculptural chair that you can't sit in."Instead: "What I'm into for 2025 instead are homes and spaces that work for your real life, whatever that is," she says. "Livable, layered and personal over trendy and disposable any day."Overly Themed RoomsDesigners are tired of spaces that adhere too strictly to a single aesthetic."Rooms that stick too literally to one decor theme, like rope mirrors in every coastal home or Edison bulbs in every 'industrial' loft, feel kitschy and predictable," Kerith Flynn says."Farmhouse is top of my list," says interior designer Lori Evans. "It's run its course and honestly if you don't live on a farm you probably don't need an actual farm-looking house. Artwork of cows, galvanized tubs, mason jars, barn doors, you name it."Instead: Flynn suggests using "layered, eclectic storytelling. We like to draw inspiration from a style without copying it wholesale... The best-designed rooms today blend influences and reflect the personality of the people who live there, not just a Pinterest board."Julia CancillaEngagement EditorJulia Cancilla is the engagement editor (and resident witch) at ELLE Decor, where she manages the brand's social media presence and covers trends, lifestyle, and culture in the design world. Julia built her background at Inked magazine, where she grew their social media audiences by two million, conducted interviews with A-list celebrities, and penned feature articles focusing on pop culture, art and lifestyle. Over her five years of digital media experience, Julia has written about numerous topics, from fashion to astrology.

Ignore the science!   This week we shared the opinion of an anonymous poster that computer science degrees should be ignored. The writer argued not that pursuing a computer science degree is a misguided effort; rather that it may not be necessary for the problems most companies need to solve.  It was a smash hit with the readers of CIO.com, causing much debate, some strong feelings, and posing difficult questions. And that is where Smart Answers comes in.   One question asked by many of our readers regarded the relative merits of earning a degree vs on the job training and certification. Smart Answers – channeling decades of human reporting and insights – is of the opinion that employers are increasingly valuing proven skills and experience alongside, or sometimes instead of, formal degrees for IT positions. That although executive roles may still require a degree, this is changing.   It’s a more nuanced argument than that, of course. And Smart Answers offers all sides.    Find out: Are industry certifications more valued than degrees for IT jobs?  Back from the cloud  The rapid rise of AI is forcing organizations to reconsider their infrastructure. Its need for specialized compute, from GPUs to high-bandwidth networking and massive storage, has challenged the economics that justified mass migration to the cloud. Whisper it (or write about it as we did this week): some organizations are quietly moving off the  cloud.  It’s a trend, then, but is it significant? InfoWorld readers hit Smart Anwers to find out. Our Chatbot parses human reporting and insights and says that multiple surveys indicate a significant percentage of companies plan to repatriate cloud resources. Indeed, IDC’s June 2024 survey found that approximately 80% of IT decision-makers anticipated some level of repatriation of compute and storage resources within the next year. That feels significant.  Find out: What percentage of companies expect to repatriate cloud resources?  Python vs Rust Template strings, deferred annotations, better error messages, and a new debugger interface are among the goodies in Python 3.14. Now in beta. This week we outlined for the readers of InfoWorld all of the best new features and fixes in Python 3.14.   Detailed and expert articles like this one always attract a huge audience on InfoWorld, largely due to the popularity of Python. But why is that the case? Why is Python so popular? Readers asked Smart Answers to compare Python to Rust and other compiler languages.   The answer? Python may not be the fastest, but it is the easiest to use and that goes a long way.  Find out: How does Python’s performance compare to compiled languages like Rust?  About Smart Answers  Smart Answers is an AI-based chatbot tool designed to help you discover content, answer questions, and go deep on the topics that matter to you. Each week we send you the three most popular questions asked by our readers, and the answers Smart Answers provides.   Developed in partnership with Miso.ai, Smart Answers draws only on editorial content from our network of trusted media brands—CIO, Computerworld, CSO, InfoWorld, and Network World—and was trained on questions that a savvy enterprise IT audience would ask. The result is a fast, efficient way for you to get more value from our content.