Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Oops, we accidentally drugged the world’s fish

News Feed
Thursday, April 10, 2025

Michelangeli, a study coauthor, releases young salmon into the river as part of the experiment. | Owen Humphreys/PA Images via Getty Images For those of us with anxiety (hello!), the class of prescription drugs known as benzodiazepines, or benzos, can be a boon in times of crisis. Though they are addictive, they’re pretty good at chilling us out.  But it turns out that by drugging ourselves with these pills, we are inadvertently drugging wild animals as well. Especially the ones that live in water.  Our bodies don’t absorb 100 percent of the drugs we ingest, so traces of them end up in the toilet. And because sewage treatment plants usually can’t filter them all out, those compounds ultimately end up where treated sewage is released — in rivers, lakes, and coastal habitats.  This means that fish and other aquatic critters that live in these environments are, for better or worse, exposed to our meds. Basically fish are on drugs — our drugs. What, exactly, does that mean for wildlife? That’s what a relatively new field of research is trying to figure out. And a study just published in the journal Science offers some compelling clues.  The authors gave young Atlantic salmon in Sweden a dose of clobazam — a benzo used to treat seizures and anxiety that’s often found in wastewater — equal to what some fish might naturally be exposed to in streams. Then they monitored what the drug did to the fish as they migrated, as young salmon do, from a river out to the Baltic Sea.  Remarkably, the study found that more of the salmon on benzos made it out to sea than those that were drug-free, perhaps because they were more likely to survive the journey. The clobazam fish also passed through obstacles along the way — two hydropower dams — at a faster clip.  These results highlight a strange irony: Humans have made the world more stressful for all kinds of animals by, for example, destroying their habitat and damming up rivers. At the same time, we’re flooding the environment with mood-changing meds. Is that somehow helping them cope?  Our meds are their meds Pretty much everywhere scientists look for drugs in the water, they find them. Caffeine. Metformin. Antidepressants. Antibiotics. Birth control. Tylenol. Basically, if we use a lot of them, they’re part of aquatic habitats.  Thankfully, they appear in low enough doses that if you, say, chug a glass of river water those chemicals are not likely to affect you (again, for better or worse). Most fish, however, are much smaller. And previous research shows that these micro-doses can influence them in serious ways. A seminal 2007 study, for example, showed that small amounts of synthetic estrogen — a common ingredient in birth control that often makes its way into the environment — can “feminize” male minnows. This means they can produce early-stage eggs in their testes, essentially becoming intersex. That ultimately impairs their ability to mate and can, as the study showed, cause fish populations to collapse.  Researchers have also shown that male fish exposed to estrogen struggle to build nests and put on courtship displays for females. Trace levels of antidepressants, like fluoxetine (Prozac) and sertraline (Zoloft) affect fish behavior, too — sometimes in bizarre ways. I came across one study linking fluoxetine exposure to larger “gonopodium” size. That’s basically a fish penis. The drug can also “increase male coercive mating behavior,” the authors wrote.  A study on sertraline, meanwhile, suggests the drug can make fish less anxious and more likely to take risks and explore. Some research on the benzo oxazepam has similarly been shown to make fish bolder.   Oh, and I also found some interesting experiments with metformin, which is used to treat Type 2 diabetes and thus one of the most widespread drugs in wastewater. A 2018 paper suggests that when Siamese fighting fish — like the betta fish you can buy at pet stores — are exposed to levels of metformin that have been found in the environment, they become less aggressive. Fighting fish, fighting less! “Subjects exhibited less aggression toward a male dummy stimulus,” the authors wrote.  Over the last two decades scientists have turned up plenty of evidence that drugs in our wastewater alter the lives and behavior of fish (and some other animals). The problem is that most of these studies are done in labs, in fish tanks, and not in the wild. So they don’t tell us much about what this means for animals in the real world, many of which are threatened with extinction, including some populations of Atlantic salmon.   That’s what makes this new study so useful — and frankly, impressive.  More drugged salmon make it out to sea Atlantic salmon, if I may say, live remarkable lives. They’re born in freshwater streams and then, as young, go through a number of physical transformations before migrating to the salty ocean in a process that can cover thousands of miles. After living their lives at sea for a year or more, they’ll swim back up river — typically in the same river they were born in, relying on some magical-sounding navigation skills — to have babies and produce the next salmon generation.  Even in historic times, this life was probably stressful. All that travel. Swimming through rivers full of predators. Yikes! Humans have only made it harder. We’ve installed dams that fish have to navigate; there are more than 7,600 dams in Sweden alone. We’ve heated up the ocean and streams, which can deprive salmon of oxygen. We fish the hell out of them. And of course, we’ve polluted their habitat.  Key, here, is that some of that pollution consists of drugs specifically designed to make humans less anxious. Authors of the new study wanted to figure out whether they might have a related effect on fish — and, importantly, what that means for their arduous journey.  The researchers’ methods were somewhat bizarre: They collected dozens of young wild salmon from a hatchery along the Dalälven, a river in Sweden, and inserted medical implants into their flesh. Some of those implants slowly released drugs — including the benzo clobazam — at a level akin to what they might be exposed to in the wild. (The researchers didn’t detect clobazam in this particular river.) Other implants were essentially placebos, meaning they didn’t release anything.  The team also performed surgeries on the fish to insert miniature devices that emit sound; those sounds can be picked up by underwater microphones that were placed along the river to track each individual fish. (How do you do surgery on a fish? You sedate it and run water over their gills while you’re operating.) Then they released the fish back into the river — which has two hydropower dams downstream — and tracked their journey to sea.  As they discovered, the fish drugged with clobazam were more likely to make it to sea compared to those that were drug-free. It’s likely that more of the undrugged salmon died on their journey or were otherwise slowed down, said Jack Brand, the study’s lead author and a researcher at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.  This might be because the benzos made the fish less social — less likely to school in the face of predators — and more likely to take risks, he said. Those traits can be helpful for navigating downstream. Solitary fish tend to move faster, Brand told me. And with benzos in their system, they may be less afraid to swim through a dam.  “These drugs can be used in humans as anti-stress drugs,” Brand said. “You can imagine passing through a hydropower dam — these are big dams with big turbines — is a fairly stressful event for a small fish. And usually what you find is that lots of predators hang around these areas. Maybe it’s helping the fish recover from stress faster.” Outside experts I talked to mostly agree with his interpretation — that the clobazam likely made the fish less risk-averse. “It probably was because they were more bold than the other fish, which were kind of shy and hanging together,” said James Meador, an affiliate professor at the University of Washington who has spent years studying how pollutants affect fish. He was not involved with the research. “Even in the presence of predators, I guess they really weren’t too concerned.”  This is pretty wild to think about. When these fish encounter stressful situations, trace levels of human anti-anxiety medications — which are, to be clear, pollution — may be sort of chilling them out. So, drugs: good?  Are drugged salmon better off?  At face value, it seems like a little dose of clobazam can help these fish out with their stressful lives, not unlike it may do for some of us. But, as I was told, that is very clearly the wrong takeaway.  “We think that any changes to natural behavior are likely to have potential negative consequences,” Brand said. Such as?  Fish on clobazam are less likely to school, or group together, which is an anti-predator response. So even though they appear better at navigating the river — and less likely to be eaten during their seaward migration — it’s possible that they may be more prone to getting killed at sea. We just don’t know. (Some past research shows that young salmon exposed to a much higher dose of a different benzo — oxazepam — were more likely to be eaten by predators during their downstream migration.) “The definition of pollution is that it causes harm,” said Karen Kidd, an ecotoxicologist at McMaster University in Canada who was not involved in the new Science study. “There are still many unknowns, such as whether it influences their survival in the ocean or their ability to return to spawn in the river as adults.” In other words, while it’s not clear exactly how clobazam is shaping salmon populations, it is influencing the complex behavior of a species — and its relationships in a food web balanced by millennia. That alone is cause for concern: It’s another way we’re messing with nature. And clobazam is just one of the thousands of prescription drugs worldwide.  That leads me to the last point: We’re pumping out more and more chemicals every year and scientists still don’t understand how most of them — there are tens if not hundreds of thousands — affect the natural world.  “If society values clean water, then we need to understand the consequences of chemicals that we put in the natural world,” said Bryan Brooks, an environmental scientist at Baylor University, who was not involved with the new research. The bottom line, he added, is that “if we put stuff in the environment, we need to understand what happens to it.” Today roughly a quarter of freshwater wildlife is in decline and at risk of extinction. Most of the threats they face are visible — dams, the destruction of habitat, invasive species. Our drugs are almost certainly another serious threat, though it’s one we can’t see and poorly understood. “Pharmaceutical pollution, or chemical pollution in general, is really this invisible agent of global change,” Brand said. “It’s probably posing a greater risk than at least what the public acknowledges. This is a potentially significant threat to our aquatic wildlife.”

For those of us with anxiety (hello!), the class of prescription drugs known as benzodiazepines, or benzos, can be a boon in times of crisis. Though they are addictive, they’re pretty good at chilling us out.  But it turns out that by drugging ourselves with these pills, we are inadvertently drugging wild animals as well. […]

A person’s hand holding a fish.
Michelangeli, a study coauthor, releases young salmon into the river as part of the experiment. | Owen Humphreys/PA Images via Getty Images

For those of us with anxiety (hello!), the class of prescription drugs known as benzodiazepines, or benzos, can be a boon in times of crisis. Though they are addictive, they’re pretty good at chilling us out. 

But it turns out that by drugging ourselves with these pills, we are inadvertently drugging wild animals as well. Especially the ones that live in water. 

Our bodies don’t absorb 100 percent of the drugs we ingest, so traces of them end up in the toilet. And because sewage treatment plants usually can’t filter them all out, those compounds ultimately end up where treated sewage is released — in rivers, lakes, and coastal habitats. 

This means that fish and other aquatic critters that live in these environments are, for better or worse, exposed to our meds. Basically fish are on drugs — our drugs.

What, exactly, does that mean for wildlife? That’s what a relatively new field of research is trying to figure out. And a study just published in the journal Science offers some compelling clues. 

The authors gave young Atlantic salmon in Sweden a dose of clobazam — a benzo used to treat seizures and anxiety that’s often found in wastewater — equal to what some fish might naturally be exposed to in streams. Then they monitored what the drug did to the fish as they migrated, as young salmon do, from a river out to the Baltic Sea. 

Remarkably, the study found that more of the salmon on benzos made it out to sea than those that were drug-free, perhaps because they were more likely to survive the journey. The clobazam fish also passed through obstacles along the way — two hydropower dams — at a faster clip. 

These results highlight a strange irony: Humans have made the world more stressful for all kinds of animals by, for example, destroying their habitat and damming up rivers. At the same time, we’re flooding the environment with mood-changing meds. Is that somehow helping them cope? 

Our meds are their meds

Pretty much everywhere scientists look for drugs in the water, they find them. Caffeine. Metformin. Antidepressants. Antibiotics. Birth control. Tylenol. Basically, if we use a lot of them, they’re part of aquatic habitats. 

Thankfully, they appear in low enough doses that if you, say, chug a glass of river water those chemicals are not likely to affect you (again, for better or worse). Most fish, however, are much smaller. And previous research shows that these micro-doses can influence them in serious ways.

A seminal 2007 study, for example, showed that small amounts of synthetic estrogen — a common ingredient in birth control that often makes its way into the environment — can “feminize” male minnows. This means they can produce early-stage eggs in their testes, essentially becoming intersex. That ultimately impairs their ability to mate and can, as the study showed, cause fish populations to collapse. 

Researchers have also shown that male fish exposed to estrogen struggle to build nests and put on courtship displays for females.

Trace levels of antidepressants, like fluoxetine (Prozac) and sertraline (Zoloft) affect fish behavior, too — sometimes in bizarre ways. I came across one study linking fluoxetine exposure to larger “gonopodium” size. That’s basically a fish penis. The drug can also “increase male coercive mating behavior,” the authors wrote. 

A study on sertraline, meanwhile, suggests the drug can make fish less anxious and more likely to take risks and explore. Some research on the benzo oxazepam has similarly been shown to make fish bolder.  

Oh, and I also found some interesting experiments with metformin, which is used to treat Type 2 diabetes and thus one of the most widespread drugs in wastewater. A 2018 paper suggests that when Siamese fighting fish — like the betta fish you can buy at pet stores — are exposed to levels of metformin that have been found in the environment, they become less aggressive. Fighting fish, fighting less! “Subjects exhibited less aggression toward a male dummy stimulus,” the authors wrote. 

Over the last two decades scientists have turned up plenty of evidence that drugs in our wastewater alter the lives and behavior of fish (and some other animals). The problem is that most of these studies are done in labs, in fish tanks, and not in the wild. So they don’t tell us much about what this means for animals in the real world, many of which are threatened with extinction, including some populations of Atlantic salmon.  

That’s what makes this new study so useful — and frankly, impressive. 

More drugged salmon make it out to sea

Atlantic salmon, if I may say, live remarkable lives. They’re born in freshwater streams and then, as young, go through a number of physical transformations before migrating to the salty ocean in a process that can cover thousands of miles. After living their lives at sea for a year or more, they’ll swim back up river — typically in the same river they were born in, relying on some magical-sounding navigation skills — to have babies and produce the next salmon generation. 

Even in historic times, this life was probably stressful. All that travel. Swimming through rivers full of predators. Yikes! Humans have only made it harder. We’ve installed dams that fish have to navigate; there are more than 7,600 dams in Sweden alone. We’ve heated up the ocean and streams, which can deprive salmon of oxygen. We fish the hell out of them. And of course, we’ve polluted their habitat. 

Key, here, is that some of that pollution consists of drugs specifically designed to make humans less anxious. Authors of the new study wanted to figure out whether they might have a related effect on fish — and, importantly, what that means for their arduous journey. 

The researchers’ methods were somewhat bizarre: They collected dozens of young wild salmon from a hatchery along the Dalälven, a river in Sweden, and inserted medical implants into their flesh. Some of those implants slowly released drugs — including the benzo clobazam — at a level akin to what they might be exposed to in the wild. (The researchers didn’t detect clobazam in this particular river.) Other implants were essentially placebos, meaning they didn’t release anything. 

The team also performed surgeries on the fish to insert miniature devices that emit sound; those sounds can be picked up by underwater microphones that were placed along the river to track each individual fish. (How do you do surgery on a fish? You sedate it and run water over their gills while you’re operating.)

Then they released the fish back into the river — which has two hydropower dams downstream — and tracked their journey to sea. 

As they discovered, the fish drugged with clobazam were more likely to make it to sea compared to those that were drug-free. It’s likely that more of the undrugged salmon died on their journey or were otherwise slowed down, said Jack Brand, the study’s lead author and a researcher at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 

This might be because the benzos made the fish less social — less likely to school in the face of predators — and more likely to take risks, he said. Those traits can be helpful for navigating downstream. Solitary fish tend to move faster, Brand told me. And with benzos in their system, they may be less afraid to swim through a dam. 

“These drugs can be used in humans as anti-stress drugs,” Brand said. “You can imagine passing through a hydropower dam — these are big dams with big turbines — is a fairly stressful event for a small fish. And usually what you find is that lots of predators hang around these areas. Maybe it’s helping the fish recover from stress faster.”

Outside experts I talked to mostly agree with his interpretation — that the clobazam likely made the fish less risk-averse. “It probably was because they were more bold than the other fish, which were kind of shy and hanging together,” said James Meador, an affiliate professor at the University of Washington who has spent years studying how pollutants affect fish. He was not involved with the research. “Even in the presence of predators, I guess they really weren’t too concerned.” 

This is pretty wild to think about. When these fish encounter stressful situations, trace levels of human anti-anxiety medications — which are, to be clear, pollution — may be sort of chilling them out. So, drugs: good? 

Are drugged salmon better off? 

At face value, it seems like a little dose of clobazam can help these fish out with their stressful lives, not unlike it may do for some of us.

But, as I was told, that is very clearly the wrong takeaway. 

“We think that any changes to natural behavior are likely to have potential negative consequences,” Brand said.

Such as? 

Fish on clobazam are less likely to school, or group together, which is an anti-predator response. So even though they appear better at navigating the river — and less likely to be eaten during their seaward migration — it’s possible that they may be more prone to getting killed at sea. We just don’t know. (Some past research shows that young salmon exposed to a much higher dose of a different benzo — oxazepam — were more likely to be eaten by predators during their downstream migration.)

“The definition of pollution is that it causes harm,” said Karen Kidd, an ecotoxicologist at McMaster University in Canada who was not involved in the new Science study. “There are still many unknowns, such as whether it influences their survival in the ocean or their ability to return to spawn in the river as adults.”

In other words, while it’s not clear exactly how clobazam is shaping salmon populations, it is influencing the complex behavior of a species — and its relationships in a food web balanced by millennia. That alone is cause for concern: It’s another way we’re messing with nature. And clobazam is just one of the thousands of prescription drugs worldwide. 

That leads me to the last point: We’re pumping out more and more chemicals every year and scientists still don’t understand how most of them — there are tens if not hundreds of thousands — affect the natural world. 

“If society values clean water, then we need to understand the consequences of chemicals that we put in the natural world,” said Bryan Brooks, an environmental scientist at Baylor University, who was not involved with the new research. The bottom line, he added, is that “if we put stuff in the environment, we need to understand what happens to it.”

Today roughly a quarter of freshwater wildlife is in decline and at risk of extinction. Most of the threats they face are visible — dams, the destruction of habitat, invasive species. Our drugs are almost certainly another serious threat, though it’s one we can’t see and poorly understood.

“Pharmaceutical pollution, or chemical pollution in general, is really this invisible agent of global change,” Brand said. “It’s probably posing a greater risk than at least what the public acknowledges. This is a potentially significant threat to our aquatic wildlife.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Contributor: 'Save the whales' worked for decades, but now gray whales are starving

The once-booming population that passed California twice a year has cratered because of retreating sea ice. A new kind of intervention is needed.

Recently, while sailing with friends on San Francisco Bay, I enjoyed the sight of harbor porpoises, cormorants, pelicans, seals and sea lions — and then the spouting plume and glistening back of a gray whale that gave me pause. Too many have been seen inside the bay recently.California’s gray whales have been considered an environmental success story since the passage of the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act and 1986’s global ban on commercial whaling. They’re also a major tourist attraction during their annual 12,000-mile round-trip migration between the Arctic and their breeding lagoons in Baja California. In late winter and early spring — when they head back north and are closest to the shoreline, with the moms protecting the calves — they can be viewed not only from whale-watching boats but also from promontories along the California coast including Point Loma in San Diego, Point Lobos in Monterey and Bodega Head and Shelter Cove in Northern California.In 1972, there were some 10,000 gray whales in the population on the eastern side of the Pacific. Generations of whaling all but eliminated the western population — leaving only about 150 alive today off of East Asia and Russia. Over the four decades following passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the eastern whale numbers grew steadily to 27,000 by 2016, a hopeful story of protection leading to restoration. Then, unexpectedly over the last nine years, the eastern gray whale population has crashed, plummeting by more than half to 12,950, according to a recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the lowest numbers since the 1970s.Today’s changing ocean and Arctic ice conditions linked to fossil-fuel-fired climate change are putting this species again at risk of extinction.While there has been some historical variation in their population, gray whales — magnificent animals that can grow up to 50 feet long and weigh as much as 80,000 pounds — are now regularly starving to death as their main food sources disappear. This includes tiny shrimp-like amphipods in the whales’ summer feeding grounds in the Arctic. It’s there that the baleen filter feeders spend the summer gorging on tiny crustaceans from the muddy bottom of the Bering, Chuckchi and Beaufort seas, creating shallow pits or potholes in the process. But, with retreating sea ice, there is less under-ice algae to feed the amphipods that in turn feed the whales. Malnourished and starving whales are also producing fewer offspring.As a result of more whales washing up dead, NOAA declared an “unusual mortality event” in California in 2019. Between 2019 and 2025, at least 1,235 gray whales were stranded dead along the West Coast. That’s eight times greater than any previous 10-year average.While there seemed to be some recovery in 2024, 2025 brought back the high casualty rates. The hungry whales now come into crowded estuaries like San Francisco Bay to feed, making them vulnerable to ship traffic. Nine in the bay were killed by ship strikes last year while another 12 appear to have died of starvation.Michael Stocker, executive director of the acoustics group Ocean Conservation Research, has been leading whale-viewing trips to the gray whales’ breeding ground at San Ignacio Lagoon in Baja California since 2006. “When we started going, there would be 400 adult whales in the lagoon, including 100 moms and their babies,” he told me. “This year we saw about 100 adult whales, only five of which were in momma-baby pairs.” Where once the predators would not have dared to hunt, he said that more recently, “orcas came into the lagoon and ate a couple of the babies because there were not enough adult whales to fend them off.”Southern California’s Gray Whale Census & Behavior Project reported record-low calf counts last year.The loss of Arctic sea ice and refusal of the world’s nations recently gathered at the COP30 Climate Summit in Brazil to meet previous commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions suggest that the prospects for gray whales and other wildlife in our warming seas, including key food species for humans such as salmon, cod and herring, look grim.California shut down the nation’s last whaling station in 1971. And yet now whales that were once hunted for their oil are falling victim to the effects of the petroleum or “rock oil” that replaced their melted blubber as a source of light and lubrication. That’s because the burning of oil, coal and gas are now overheating our blue planet. While humans have gone from hunting to admiring whales as sentient beings in recent decades, our own intelligence comes into question when we fail to meet commitments to a clean carbon-free energy future. That could be the gray whales’ last best hope, if there is any.David Helvarg is the executive director of Blue Frontier, an ocean policy group, and co-host of “Rising Tide: The Ocean Podcast.” He is the author of the forthcoming “Forest of the Sea: The Remarkable Life and Imperiled Future of Kelp.”

Pills that communicate from the stomach could improve medication adherence

MIT engineers designed capsules with biodegradable radio frequency antennas that can reveal when the pill has been swallowed.

In an advance that could help ensure people are taking their medication on schedule, MIT engineers have designed a pill that can report when it has been swallowed.The new reporting system, which can be incorporated into existing pill capsules, contains a biodegradable radio frequency antenna. After it sends out the signal that the pill has been consumed, most components break down in the stomach while a tiny RF chip passes out of the body through the digestive tract.This type of system could be useful for monitoring transplant patients who need to take immunosuppressive drugs, or people with infections such as HIV or TB, who need treatment for an extended period of time, the researchers say.“The goal is to make sure that this helps people receive the therapy they need to help maximize their health,” says Giovanni Traverso, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and an associate member of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.Traverso is the senior author of the new study, which appears today in Nature Communications. Mehmet Girayhan Say, an MIT research scientist, and Sean You, a former MIT postdoc, are the lead authors of the paper.A pill that communicatesPatients’ failure to take their medicine as prescribed is a major challenge that contributes to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths and billions of dollars in health care costs annually.To make it easier for people to take their medication, Traverso’s lab has worked on delivery capsules that can remain in the digestive tract for days or weeks, releasing doses at predetermined times. However, this approach may not be compatible with all drugs.“We’ve developed systems that can stay in the body for a long time, and we know that those systems can improve adherence, but we also recognize that for certain medications, we can’t change the pill,” Traverso says. “The question becomes: What else can we do to help the person and help their health care providers ensure that they’re receiving the medication?”In their new study, the researchers focused on a strategy that would allow doctors to more closely monitor whether patients are taking their medication. Using radio frequency — a type of signal that can be easily detected from outside the body and is safe for humans — they designed a capsule that can communicate after the patient has swallowed it.There have been previous efforts to develop RF-based signaling devices for medication capsules, but those were all made from components that don’t break down easily in the body and would need to travel through the digestive system.To minimize the potential risk of any blockage of the GI tract, the MIT team decided to create an RF-based system that would be bioresorbable, meaning that it can be broken down and absorbed by the body. The antenna that sends out the RF signal is made from zinc, and it is embedded into a cellulose particle.“We chose these materials recognizing their very favorable safety profiles and also environmental compatibility,” Traverso says.The zinc-cellulose antenna is rolled up and placed inside a capsule along with the drug to be delivered. The outer layer of the capsule is made from gelatin coated with a layer of cellulose and either molybdenum or tungsten, which blocks any RF signal from being emitted.Once the capsule is swallowed, the coating breaks down, releasing the drug along with the RF antenna. The antenna can then pick up an RF signal sent from an external receiver and, working with a small RF chip, sends back a signal to confirm that the capsule was swallowed. This communication happens within 10 minutes of the pill being swallowed.The RF chip, which is about 400 by 400 micrometers, is an off-the-shelf chip that is not biodegradable and would need to be excreted through the digestive tract. All of the other components would break down in the stomach within a week.“The components are designed to break down over days using materials with well-established safety profiles, such as zinc and cellulose, which are already widely used in medicine,” Say says. “Our goal is to avoid long-term accumulation while enabling reliable confirmation that a pill was taken, and longer-term safety will continue to be evaluated as the technology moves toward clinical use.”Promoting adherenceTests in an animal model showed that the RF signal was successfully transmitted from inside the stomach and could be read by an external receiver at a distance up to 2 feet away. If developed for use in humans, the researchers envision designing a wearable device that could receive the signal and then transmit it to the patient’s health care team.The researchers now plan to do further preclinical studies and hope to soon test the system in humans. One patient population that could benefit greatly from this type of monitoring is people who have recently had organ transplants and need to take immunosuppressant drugs to make sure their body doesn’t reject the new organ.“We want to prioritize medications that, when non-adherence is present, could have a really detrimental effect for the individual,” Traverso says.Other populations that could benefit include people who have recently had a stent inserted and need to take medication to help prevent blockage of the stent, people with chronic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, and people with neuropsychiatric disorders whose conditions may impair their ability to take their medication.The research was funded by Novo Nordisk, MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering, the Division of Gastroenterology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), which notes that the views and conclusions contained in this article are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the United States Government.

Costa Rica Rescues Orphaned Manatee Calf in Tortuguero

A young female manatee washed up alone on a beach in Tortuguero National Park early on January 5, sparking a coordinated effort by local authorities to save the animal. The calf, identified as a Caribbean manatee, appeared separated from its mother, with no immediate signs of her in the area. Park rangers received the first […] The post Costa Rica Rescues Orphaned Manatee Calf in Tortuguero appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

A young female manatee washed up alone on a beach in Tortuguero National Park early on January 5, sparking a coordinated effort by local authorities to save the animal. The calf, identified as a Caribbean manatee, appeared separated from its mother, with no immediate signs of her in the area. Park rangers received the first alert around 8 a.m. from visitors who spotted the stranded calf. Staff from the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) quickly arrived on site. They secured the animal to prevent further harm and began searching nearby waters and canals for the mother. Despite hours of monitoring, officials found no evidence of her presence. “The calf showed no visible injuries but needed prompt attention due to its age and vulnerability,” said a SINAC official involved in the operation. Without a parent nearby, the young manatee faced risks from dehydration and predators in the open beach environment. As the day progressed, the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) joined the response. They decided to relocate the calf for specialized care. In a first for such rescues in the region, teams arranged an aerial transport to move the animal safely to a rehabilitation facility. This step aimed to give the manatee the best chance at survival while experts assess its health. Once at the center, the calf received immediate feeding and medical checks. During one session, it dozed off mid-meal, a sign that it felt secure in the hands of caretakers. Biologists now monitor the animal closely, hoping to release it back into the wild if conditions allow. Manatees, known locally as manatíes, inhabit the coastal waters and rivers of Costa Rica’s Caribbean side. They often face threats from boat strikes, habitat loss, and pollution. Tortuguero, with its network of canals and protected areas, serves as a key habitat for the species. Recent laws have strengthened protections, naming the manatee a national marine symbol to raise awareness. This incident highlights the ongoing challenges for wildlife in the area. Local communities and tourists play a key role in reporting sightings, which can lead to timely interventions. Authorities encourage anyone spotting distressed animals to contact SINAC without delay. The rescue team expressed gratitude to those who reported the stranding. Their quick action likely saved the calf’s life. As investigations continue, officials will determine if environmental factors contributed to the separation. For now, the young manatee rests under professional care, a small win for conservation efforts in Limón. The post Costa Rica Rescues Orphaned Manatee Calf in Tortuguero appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

New Records Reveal the Mess RFK Jr. Left When He Dumped a Dead Bear in Central Park

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he left a bear cub's corpse in Central Park in 2014 to "be fun." Records newly obtained by WIRED show what he left New York civil servants to clean up.

This story contains graphic imagery.On August 4, 2024, when now-US health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was still a presidential candidate, he posted a video on X in which he admitted to dumping a dead bear cub near an old bicycle in Central Park 10 years prior, in a mystifying attempt to make the young bear’s premature death look like a cyclist’s hit and run.WIRED's Guide to How the Universe WorksYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. At the time, Kennedy said he was trying to get ahead of a story The New Yorker was about to publish that mentioned the incident. But in coming clean, Kennedy solved a decade-old New York City mystery: How and why had a young black bear—a wild animal native to the state, but not to modern-era Manhattan—been found dead under a bush near West 69th Street in Central Park?WIRED has obtained documents that shed new light on the incident from the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation via a public records request. The documents—which include previously unseen photos of the bear cub—resurface questions about the bizarre choices Kennedy says he made, which left city employees dealing with the aftermath and lamenting the cub’s short life and grim fate.A representative for Kennedy did not respond for comment. The New York Police Department (NYPD) and the Parks Department referred WIRED to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). NYDEC spokesperson Jeff Wernick tells WIRED that its investigation into the death of the bear cub was closed in late 2014 “due to a lack of sufficient evidence” to determine if state law was violated. They added that New York’s environmental conservation law forbids “illegal possession of a bear without a tag or permit and illegal disposal of a bear,” and that “the statute of limitations for these offenses is one year.”The first of a number of emails between local officials coordinating the handling of the baby bear’s remains was sent at 10:16 a.m. on October 6, 2014. Bonnie McGuire, then-deputy director at Urban Park Rangers (UPR), told two colleagues that UPR sergeant Eric Handy had recently called her about a “dead black bear” found in Central Park.“NYPD told him they will treat it like a crime scene so he can’t get too close,” McGuire wrote. “I’ve asked him to take pictures and send them over and to keep us posted.”“Poor little guy!” McGuire wrote in a separate email later that morning.According to emails obtained by WIRED, Handy updated several colleagues throughout the day, noting that the NYDEC had arrived on scene, and that the agency was planning to coordinate with the NYPD to transfer the body to the Bronx Zoo, where it would be inspected by the NYPD’s animal cruelty unit and the ASPCA. (This didn’t end up happening, as the NYDEC took the bear to a state lab near Albany.)Imagery of the bear has been public before—local news footage from October 2014 appears to show it from a distance. However, the documents WIRED obtained show previously unpublished images that investigators took of the bear on the scene, which Handy sent as attachments in emails to McGuire. The bear is seen laying on its side in an unnatural position. Its head protrudes from under a bush and rests next to a small patch of grass. Bits of flesh are visible through the bear’s black fur, which was covered in a few brown leaves.Courtesy of NYC Parks

U.S. Military Ends Practice of Shooting Live Animals to Train Medics to Treat Battlefield Wounds

The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act bans the use of live animals in live fire training exercises and prohibits "painful" research on domestic cats and dogs

U.S. Military Ends Practice of Shooting Live Animals to Train Medics to Treat Battlefield Wounds The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act bans the use of live animals in live fire training exercises and prohibits “painful” research on domestic cats and dogs Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent January 5, 2026 12:00 p.m. The U.S. military will no longer shoot live goats and pigs to help combat medics learn to treat battlefield injuries. Pexels The United States military is no longer shooting live animals as part of its trauma training exercises for combat medics. The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, which was enacted on December 18, bans the use of live animals—including dogs, cats, nonhuman primates and marine mammals—in any live fire trauma training conducted by the Department of Defense. It directs military leaders to instead use advanced simulators, mannequins, cadavers or actors. According to the Associated Press’ Ben Finley, the bill ends the military’s practice of shooting live goats and pigs to help combat medics learn to treat battlefield injuries. However, the military is allowed to continue other practices involving animals, including stabbing, burning and testing weapons on them. In those scenarios, the animals are supposed to be anesthetized, per the AP. “With today’s advanced simulation technology, we can prepare our medics for the battlefield while reducing harm to animals,” says Florida Representative Vern Buchanan, who advocated for the change, in a statement shared with the AP. He described the military’s practices as “outdated and inhumane” and called the move a “major step forward in reducing unnecessary suffering.” Quick fact: What is the National Defense Authorization Act? The National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, is a law passed each year that authorizes the Department of Defense’s appropriated funds, greenlights the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons programs and sets defense policies and restrictions, among other activities, for the upcoming fiscal year. Organizations have opposed the military’s use of live animals in trauma training, too, including the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA, a nonprofit animal advocacy group, described the legislation as a “major victory for animals” that will “save countless animals from heinous cruelty” in a statement. The legislation also prohibits “painful research” on domestic cats and dogs, though exceptions can be made under certain circumstances, such as interests of national security. “Painful” research includes any training, experiments or tests that fall into specific pain categories outlined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. For example, military cats and dogs can no longer be exposed to extreme environmental conditions or noxious stimuli they cannot escape, nor can they be forced to exercise to the point of distress or exhaustion. The bill comes amid a broader push to end the use of live animals in federal tests, studies and training, reports Linda F. Hersey for Stars and Stripes. After temporarily suspending live tissue training with animals in 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard made the ban permanent in 2018. In 2024, U.S. lawmakers directed the Department of Veterans Affairs to end its experiments on cats, dogs and primates. And in May 2025, the U.S. Navy announced it would no longer conduct research testing on cats and dogs. As the Washington Post’s Ernesto Londoño reported in 2013, the U.S. military has used animals for medical training since at least the Vietnam War. However, the practice largely went unnoticed until 1983, when the U.S. Army planned to anesthetize dogs, hang them from nylon mesh slings and shoot them at an indoor firing range in Maryland. When activists and lawmakers learned of the proposal, they decried the practice and convinced then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger to ban the shooting of dogs. However, in 1984, the AP reported the U.S. military would continue shooting live goats and pigs for wound treatment training, with a military medical study group arguing “there is no substitute for the live animals as a study object for hands-on training.” In the modern era, it’s not clear how often and to what extent the military uses animals, per the AP. And despite the Department of Defense’s past efforts to minimize the use of animals for trauma training, a 2022 report from the Government Accountability Office, the watchdog agency charged with providing fact-based, nonpartisan information to Congress, determined that the agency was “unable to fully demonstrate the extent to which it has made progress.” The Defense Health Agency, the U.S. government entity responsible for the military’s medical training, says in a statement shared with the AP that it “remains committed to replacement of animal models without compromising the quality of medical training,” including the use of “realistic training scenarios to ensure medical providers are well-prepared to care for the combat-wounded.” Animal activists say technology has come a long way in recent decades so, beyond the animal welfare concerns, the military simply no longer needs to use live animals for training. Instead, military medics can simulate treating battlefield injuries using “cut suits,” or realistic suits with skin, blood and organs that are worn by a live person to mimic traumatic injuries. However, not everyone agrees. Michael Bailey, an Army combat medic who served two tours in Iraq, told the Washington Post in 2013 that his training with a sedated goat was invaluable. “You don’t get that [sense of urgency] from a mannequin,” he told the publication. “You don’t get that feeling of this mannequin is going to die. When you’re talking about keeping someone alive when physics and the enemy have done their best to do the opposite, it’s the kind of training that you want to have in your back pocket.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.