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.

Science Isn’t about Domination. It’s about Democracy

News Feed
Friday, April 25, 2025

Science Isn’t about Domination. It’s about DemocracyScience is key to diplomacy, unity and democracy. What the Trump administration is trying to do to it will weaken the U.S.By Megha Satyanarayana Nestled in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the slash-and-burn playbook for the federal government that the Trump administration is following while saying it isn’t, is a call for American “science dominance.”There is no such thing. And what the project means by the term—turning the Department of Energy into a handmaiden of the coal, oil and natural gas industry—betrays not only the taxpayer but science itself.Science isn’t a winner-take-all, zero-sum game of flag football. Whether during the cold war or the era of Sir Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, the bedrock of science has been international cooperation. People pursue scientific knowledge not solely for the sake of lording our spoils over everyone else. The monetary value of research is not the only reason why humans engage in asking why of the world around us.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.Science breeds diplomacy. It counters division. It tells us what is, not what we want things to be. Science enables democracy. The way the Trump administration is approaching it, by cutting funds for projects that run afoul of conservative values, such as ones related to diversity, or calling for research into claims that have already been debunked, which is the case for the idea that vaccines are linked to autism, defies all this. If that approach succeeds, it will make us a poorer nation in every sense of the word.By halting federal funds to scientific research, canceling university grants and threatening to deport immigrant scientists, the Trump administration is restricting the flow of ideas. By trying to legitimize debunked scientific ideas and allocating taxpayer dollars to research into those debunked ideas, the administration sows discord and undermines the role of public health in preventing sickness and disease. By canceling global aid for public health projects, the administration is shunning the U.S. role in global health. And in their push for energy dominance, Trump and his allies are kicking years of negotiation over climate change to the curb.By becoming insular, by cutting out the world, we stand to lose our best and brightest minds in science and the exchange of ideas that leads to innovation. Our country is a scientific and economic powerhouse precisely because we have been so open and collaborative for so long. China’s academic scientific output, as measured by publications in Nature journals, has surpassed that of the U.S. How can cutting federal science funding help the administration’s intellectual war with China? How can the U.S. further its national interests if we shut out ideas and people? How does democracy survive if we stop research and the flow of information?In setting the stage for the role of the U.S. government in science, Vannevar Bush told President Harry Truman in 1945 that “scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress.” He noted the federal government’s role in supporting agricultural research and said, “The time has come when such support should be extended to other fields.”From the 1950s on, the U.S. government has been the largest funder of scientific research in the nation, not to mention the world. Those dollars have helped develop countless drugs, and a wide assortment of military and domestic machinery, and they have paid the salaries of millions of researchers. Those dollars have saved people and helped industrialize nations the world over.American scientific research has also influenced policymaking. This is where the tie to democracy matters most: evidence-based policymaking allows the largest number of people in the country to be healthy, be safe and have a voice. This is what cutbacks to science threaten. This is how Trump administration–sponsored research into questions that have basically been answered, because officials don’t like the answer, threatens the ability of all Americans to thrive.When Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., says the nation will know by the end of the summer what environmental factors cause autism and calls for the private medical records of autistic people as part of this push, this is a fishing expedition. Kennedy doesn’t like the answers that we already have—vaccines do not cause autism, and genetics influences the development of autism—so he wastes taxpayer money.Recently, a group of scientists from all over the world earned Breakthrough Prize for the work they did at CERN, a multinational facility that tests fundamental ideas in physics. With cuts to science funding, what will happen to projects like this, plans to improve our Antarctic field stations, and efforts like the evidence-driven Paris climate agreement? Such ideas underpin our grasp of the natural world and probe the technologies the U.S. needs. Scuttling science and shutting doors on the world will leave us in the dark. Domination will doom us to failure.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Science is key to diplomacy, unity and democracy. What the Trump administration is trying to do to it will weaken the U.S.

Science Isn’t about Domination. It’s about Democracy

Science is key to diplomacy, unity and democracy. What the Trump administration is trying to do to it will weaken the U.S.

By Megha Satyanarayana

Illustration of a black United States map surrounded by a white picket fence on a red background

Nestled in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the slash-and-burn playbook for the federal government that the Trump administration is following while saying it isn’t, is a call for American “science dominance.”

There is no such thing. And what the project means by the term—turning the Department of Energy into a handmaiden of the coal, oil and natural gas industry—betrays not only the taxpayer but science itself.

Science isn’t a winner-take-all, zero-sum game of flag football. Whether during the cold war or the era of Sir Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, the bedrock of science has been international cooperation. People pursue scientific knowledge not solely for the sake of lording our spoils over everyone else. The monetary value of research is not the only reason why humans engage in asking why of the world around us.


On supporting science journalism

If 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.


Science breeds diplomacy. It counters division. It tells us what is, not what we want things to be. Science enables democracy. The way the Trump administration is approaching it, by cutting funds for projects that run afoul of conservative values, such as ones related to diversity, or calling for research into claims that have already been debunked, which is the case for the idea that vaccines are linked to autism, defies all this. If that approach succeeds, it will make us a poorer nation in every sense of the word.

By halting federal funds to scientific research, canceling university grants and threatening to deport immigrant scientists, the Trump administration is restricting the flow of ideas. By trying to legitimize debunked scientific ideas and allocating taxpayer dollars to research into those debunked ideas, the administration sows discord and undermines the role of public health in preventing sickness and disease. By canceling global aid for public health projects, the administration is shunning the U.S. role in global health. And in their push for energy dominance, Trump and his allies are kicking years of negotiation over climate change to the curb.

By becoming insular, by cutting out the world, we stand to lose our best and brightest minds in science and the exchange of ideas that leads to innovation. Our country is a scientific and economic powerhouse precisely because we have been so open and collaborative for so long. China’s academic scientific output, as measured by publications in Nature journals, has surpassed that of the U.S. How can cutting federal science funding help the administration’s intellectual war with China? How can the U.S. further its national interests if we shut out ideas and people? How does democracy survive if we stop research and the flow of information?

In setting the stage for the role of the U.S. government in science, Vannevar Bush told President Harry Truman in 1945 that “scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress.” He noted the federal government’s role in supporting agricultural research and said, “The time has come when such support should be extended to other fields.”

From the 1950s on, the U.S. government has been the largest funder of scientific research in the nation, not to mention the world. Those dollars have helped develop countless drugs, and a wide assortment of military and domestic machinery, and they have paid the salaries of millions of researchers. Those dollars have saved people and helped industrialize nations the world over.

American scientific research has also influenced policymaking. This is where the tie to democracy matters most: evidence-based policymaking allows the largest number of people in the country to be healthy, be safe and have a voice. This is what cutbacks to science threaten. This is how Trump administration–sponsored research into questions that have basically been answered, because officials don’t like the answer, threatens the ability of all Americans to thrive.

When Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., says the nation will know by the end of the summer what environmental factors cause autism and calls for the private medical records of autistic people as part of this push, this is a fishing expedition. Kennedy doesn’t like the answers that we already have—vaccines do not cause autism, and genetics influences the development of autism—so he wastes taxpayer money.

Recently, a group of scientists from all over the world earned Breakthrough Prize for the work they did at CERN, a multinational facility that tests fundamental ideas in physics. With cuts to science funding, what will happen to projects like this, plans to improve our Antarctic field stations, and efforts like the evidence-driven Paris climate agreement? Such ideas underpin our grasp of the natural world and probe the technologies the U.S. needs. Scuttling science and shutting doors on the world will leave us in the dark. Domination will doom us to failure.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

School of Science welcomed new faculty in 2024

Eleven new professors join the departments of Biology; Brain and Cognitive Sciences; Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences; Mathematics; and Physics.

The School of Science welcomed 11 new faculty members in 2024.Shaoyun Bai researches symplectic topology, the study of even-dimensional spaces whose properties are reflected by two-dimensional surfaces inside them. He is interested in this area’s interaction with other fields, including algebraic geometry, algebraic topology, geometric topology, and dynamics. He has been developing new tool kits for counting problems from moduli spaces, which have been applied to classical questions, including the Arnold conjecture, periodic points of Hamiltonian maps, higher-rank Casson invariants, enumeration of embedded curves, and topology of symplectic fibrations.Bai completed his undergraduate studies at Tsinghua University in 2017 and earned his PhD in mathematics from Princeton University in 2022, advised by John Pardon. Bai then held visiting positions at MSRI (now known as Simons Laufer Mathematical Sciences Institute) as a McDuff Postdoctoral Fellow and at the Simons Center for Geometry and Physics, and he was a Ritt Assistant Professor at Columbia University. He joined the MIT Department of Mathematics as an assistant professor in 2024.Abigail Bodner investigates turbulence in the upper ocean using remote sensing measurements, in-situ ocean observations numerical simulations, climate models, and machine learning. Her research explores how the small-scale physics of turbulence near the ocean surface impacts the large-scale climate. Bodner earned a BS and MS from Tel Aviv University studying mathematics and geophysics, atmospheric and planetary sciences. She then went on to Brown University, earning an MS in applied mathematics before completing her PhD studies in 2021 in Earth, environmental, and planetary science. Prior to coming to MIT, Bodner was a Simons Society Junior Fellow at New York University. Bodner joined the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS) faculty in 2024, with a shared appointment in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.Jacopo Borga is interested in probability theory and its connections to combinatorics, and in mathematical physics. He studies various random combinatorial structures — mathematical objects such as graphs or permutations — and their patterns and behavior at a large scale. This research includes random permutons, meanders, multidimensional constrained Brownian motions, Schramm-Loewner evolutions, and Liouville quantum gravity. Borga earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mathematics from the Università degli Studi di Padova, and a master’s degree in mathematics from Université Sorbonne Paris Cité (USPC), then proceeded to complete a PhD in mathematics at Unstitut für Mathematik at the Universität Zürich. Borga was an assistant professor at Stanford University before joining MIT as an assistant professor of mathematics in 2024.Linlin Fan aims to decipher the neural codes underlying learning and memory and to identify the physical basis of learning and memory. Her research focus is on the learning rules of brain circuits — what kinds of activity trigger the encoding and storing of information — how these learning rulers are implemented, and how memories can be inferred from mapping neural functional connectivity patterns. To answer these questions, Fan’s group leverages high-precision, all-optical technologies to map and control the electrical charges of neurons within the brain.Fan earned her PhD at Harvard University after undergraduate studies at Peking University in China. She joined the MIT Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences as the Samuel A. Goldblith Career Development Professor of Applied Biology, and the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory as an investigator in January 2024. Previously, Fan worked as a postdoc at Stanford University.Whitney Henry investigates ferroptosis, a type of cell death dependent on iron, to uncover how oxidative stress, metabolism, and immune signaling intersect to shape cell fate decisions. Her research has defined key lipid metabolic and iron homeostatic programs that regulate ferroptosis susceptibility. By uncovering the molecular factors influencing ferroptosis susceptibility, investigating its effects on the tumor microenvironment, and developing innovative methods to manipulate ferroptosis resistance in living organisms, Henry’s lab aims to gain a comprehensive understanding of the therapeutic potential of ferroptosis, especially to target highly metastatic, therapy-resistant cancer cells.Henry received her bachelor's degree in biology with a minor in chemistry from Grambling State University and her PhD from Harvard University. Following her doctoral studies, she worked at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research and was supported by fellowships from the Jane Coffin Childs Memorial Fund for Medical Research and the Ludwig Center at MIT. Henry joined the MIT faculty in 2024 as an assistant professor in the Department of Biology and a member of the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, and was recently named the Robert A. Swanson (1969) Career Development Professor of Life Sciences and a HHMI Freeman Hrabowski Scholar.Gian Michele Innocenti is an experimental physicist who probes new regimes of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) through collisions of ultra relativistic heavy ions at the Large Hadron Collider. He has developed advanced analysis techniques and data-acquisition strategies that enable novel measurements of open heavy-flavor and jet production in hadronic and ultraperipheral heavy-ion collisions, shedding light on the properties of high-temperature QCD matter and parton dynamics in Lorentz-contracted nuclei. He leads the MIT Pixel𝜑 program, which exploits CMOS MAPS technology to build a high-precision tracking detector for the ePIC experiment at the Electron–Ion Collider.Innocenti received his PhD in particle and nuclear physics at the University of Turin in Italy in early 2014. He then joined the MIT heavy-ion group in the Laboratory of Nuclear Science in 2014 as a postdoc, followed by a staff research physicist position at CERN in 2018. Innocenti joined the MIT Department of Physics as an assistant professor in January 2024.Mathematician Christoph Kehle's research interests lie at the intersection of analysis, geometry, and partial differential equations. In particular, he focuses on the Einstein field equations of general relativity and our current understanding of gravitation, which describe how matter and energy shape spacetime. His work addresses the Strong Cosmic Censorship conjecture, singularities in black hole interiors, and the dynamics of extremal black holes.Prior to joining MIT, Kehle was a junior fellow at ETH Zürich and a member at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Ludwig Maximilian University and Technical University of Munich, and his PhD in 2020 from the University of Cambridge. Kehle joined the Department of Mathematics as an assistant professor in July 2024.Aleksandr Logunov is a mathematician specializing in harmonic analysis and geometric analysis. He has developed novel techniques for studying the zeros of solutions to partial differential equations and has resolved several long-standing problems, including Yau’s conjecture, Nadirashvili’s conjecture, and Landis’ conjectures.Logunov earned his PhD in 2015 from St. Petersburg State University. He then spent two years as a postdoc at Tel Aviv University, followed by a year as a member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. In 2018, he joined Princeton University as an assistant professor. In 2020, he spent a semester at Tel Aviv University as an IAS Outstanding Fellow, and in 2021, he was appointed full professor at the University of Geneva. Logunov joined MIT as a full professor in the Department of Mathematics in January 2024.Lyle Nelson is a sedimentary geologist studying the co-evolution of life and surface environments across pivotal transitions in Earth history, especially during significant ecological change — such as extinction events and the emergence of new clades — and during major shifts in ocean chemistry and climate. Studying sedimentary rocks that were tectonically uplifted and are now exposed in mountain belts around the world, Nelson’s group aims to answer questions such as how the reorganization of continents influenced the carbon cycle and climate, the causes and effects of ancient ice ages, and what factors drove the evolution of early life forms and the rapid diversification of animals during the Cambrian period.Nelson earned a bachelor’s degree in earth and planetary sciences from Harvard University in 2015 and then worked as an exploration geologist before completing his PhD at Johns Hopkins University in 2022. Prior to coming to MIT, he was an assistant professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ontario, Canada. Nelson joined the EAPS faculty in 2024.Protein evolution is the process by which proteins change over time through mechanisms such as mutation or natural selection. Biologist Sergey Ovchinnikov uses phylogenetic inference, protein structure prediction/determination, protein design, deep learning, energy-based models, and differentiable programming to tackle evolutionary questions at environmental, organismal, genomic, structural, and molecular scales, with the aim of developing a unified model of protein evolution.Ovchinnikov received his BS in micro/molecular biology from Portland State University in 2010 and his PhD in molecular and cellular biology from the University of Washington in 2017. He was next a John Harvard Distinguished Science Fellow at Harvard University until 2023. Ovchinnikov joined MIT as an assistant professor of biology in January 2024.Shu-Heng Shao explores the structural aspects of quantum field theories and lattice systems. Recently, his research has centered on generalized symmetries and anomalies, with a particular focus on a novel type of symmetry without an inverse, referred to as non-invertible symmetries. These new symmetries have been identified in various quantum systems, including the Ising model, Yang-Mills theories, lattice gauge theories, and the Standard Model. They lead to new constraints on renormalization group flows, new conservation laws, and new organizing principles in classifying phases of quantum matter.Shao obtained his BS in physics from National Taiwan University in 2010, and his PhD in physics from Harvard University in 2016. He was then a five-year long-term member at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton before he moved to the Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics at Stony Brook University as an assistant professor in 2021. In 2024, he joined the MIT faculty as an assistant professor of physics.

Incredible close-up of spider silk wins science photo prize

Duelling prairie chickens, a snake-mimicking moth and a once-a-year sunrise at the South Pole feature in the best images from the Royal Society Publishing Photography Competition 2025

Spider silk threadsMartin J. Ramirez/Royal Society Publishing These twisting threads wrapped in thinner, looping strands are the silk of an Australian net-casting spider (Asianopis subrufa), a consummate ambush predator. Instead of building a web and waiting for prey to fall into it, this spider holds its net in its front four legs and throws it over a hapless insect. As this electron microscope image shows, its silk is specially adapted for this unusual hunting technique: it consists of an elastic core encased in a sheath of harder fibres of varying sizes, making it both strong and exceptionally stretchy. The photo, taken by Martin J. Ramirez at the Argentinian Bernardino Rivadavia Museum of Natural Sciences and his colleagues, is the overall winner of the Royal Society Publishing Photography Competition 2025. Jumping prairie-chickensPeter Hudson/Royal Society Publishing The winning photo in the behaviour category shows a fight between two male greater prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus cupido), snapped by Peter Hudson at the Pennsylvania State University. Like many grouse species, males gather at a so-called lek during the breeding season, where they compete for mates by leaping into the air and attempting to strike their opponent. TadpolesFilippo Carugati/Royal Society Publishing Filippo Carugati at the University of Turin, Italy, won in the ecology and environmental science category with this photo of tadpoles, taken during fieldwork in Madagascar. The tadpoles, thought to be the young of a Guibemantis liber frog, are swimming in a gelatinous substance hanging from a tree trunk. Atlas mothIrina Petrova Adamatzky/Royal Society Publishing This image by Irina Petrova Adamatzky, a UK-based photographer, is the runner-up in the behaviour category. It showcases the masterful mimicry of the Atlas moth (Attacus atlas), one of the largest moths in the world, with a wingspan of up to 30 centimetres. The tips of its wings resemble snake heads: a disguise that helps it avoid being eaten by birds. Fog in the Atacama desertFelipe Rios Silva/Royal Society Publishing In Chile’s Atacama desert, stratocumulus clouds drifting in from the coast are a valuable resource. Felipe Ríos Silva at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile and his colleagues are exploring techniques for catching the fog and turning it into drinking water for communities living in one of the driest places on Earth. Ríos Silva’s photo was the runner-up in the earth sciences and climatology category. South Pole sunriseDr. Aman Chokshi/Royal Society Publishing The return of the sun after six months of darkness at the South Pole is captured in this image by Aman Chokshi at McGill University in Canada, the runner-up in the astronomy category. Chokshi had to heat up his camera and contend with the icy wind at -70°C (-94°F) for several minutes to take a 360-degree panoramic shot of the horizon as the sun rose. He then turned it into a stereographic image resembling a small planet, fringed by a green and purple aurora with the Milky Way above.

The 13 best popular science books of 2025

Women's hidden extra work, positive tipping points and new thinking on autism – there's much to chew on in this year's best reads, says Liz Else

Holiday reading: our pick of the best popular science books of the yearhadynyah/Getty Images The challenge here is clearly highlighted on the book’s cover, where “positive” is coloured a bright shiny yellow. After all, we know how tipping points work – a small change makes a big, sometimes defining, change to a system or state. In climate terms, that could mean, for example, that major ice sheets melt, or the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation collapses. The order in which tipping points happen matters too, says Tim Lenton, who has spent years modelling them. But Lenton is after the positives in this excellent exploration of the possible. Pressure from small groups can galvanise change, he writes. Policy at the governmental level is essential, but usually needs the leverage of such groups, disruptive innovation or economic or environmental shock, he says. There are plenty of other factors that can come into play as forcing agents, including personal agency in the shape of individual behaviour, for example eating less meat or adopting electric vehicles. Science popularisers may seem like a wild card, but Clearing the Air by Hannah Ritchie is a bit of a stealth weapon, since it provides data-led answers on the road to net zero. And it helps us to dismiss nonsense claims, such as that heat pumps don’t work in cold weather, or questions like do wind farms kill birds. On the latter, the answer is yes, they do kill some birds, but that number is dwarfed by the annual kill rate of cats, buildings, cars and pesticides. Nevertheless, wind turbines pose a real threat to some bats, migrating birds and birds of prey. But Ritchie points out how to reduce the risk, such as by painting turbines black, and powering down blades during low wind. Lenton is also a realist, urging us to keep our eye on the bigger picture. It is very hard to imagine a time when burning fossil fuels is seen as backward or abhorrent, he writes, but that is “the nature of tipping points in social norms – what beforehand seemed impossible afterwards seems inevitable”.   What could be more stupid than writing a history of stupidity, asks Stuart Jeffries, author of, er, just such a book. Luckily for him and for us, there is a lot to like in this clever exploration of a slippery subject. After all, what do we really mean by stupidity? Ignorance? Foolishness? Inability to learn? As Jeffries says, stupid is a judgement, not a fact – science can’t measure it, except perhaps negatively, by measuring low IQ scores. Jeffries’s quest to understand stupidity is a historical, political and global take, so we’re off on a great philosophical adventure, through Plato, Socrates, Voltaire, Schopenhauer – and multiple obscure and less obscure thinkers. Also included are various schools of Eastern thinking (Daoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and more), which take a different view from the West, in that the pursuit of intelligence may get in the way of personal development or the enlightenment Buddhists call Nirvana. All in all, there are no signs of stupidity in this delightful and unexpected book.   Most of us will recognise this stream of consciousness running as a background to our lives: “Have the kids had enough protein this week?”; “What bedframe would look good in our bedroom?” and the like. This is “cognitive household labor”, the mental labour that keeps families afloat, and sociologist Allison Daminger says it is “missing from most studies of how we do gender via housework”. It is an excellent point in a book that should receive all the positive reviews it can get. Breadwinners by Melissa Hogenboom is a similar examination, exposing the hidden power dynamics and unconscious cognitive biases shaping our lives. As our reviewer wrote, it makes a compelling, evidence-based case for recognising these imbalances and identifying where and how to correct them. Perfect family reading over the holidays.   Unequal by Eugenia Cheng You might think things are either equal or they aren’t, but for mathematician Eugenia Cheng, some things are more equal than others – in maths and in life. Her clever exploration of the meaning of “equals” helps us grasp its mathematical complexities – and the everyday dangers of assuming, for example, two people who score the same on an IQ test are equally intelligent.   This book offers a fascinating opportunity to see art and science reflect off each other in a richly illustrated tour of artwork about the ocean, starting at its coastlines and ending at its abysses. At school, the book’s author, marine biologist Helen Scales, was asked to choose between following an artistic life and a scientific one. Here she indulges both, aiming to select works that “celebrate the diversity of life in the sea”, and to show how artists and scientists working together have played an important part in describing and recording the biodiversity of our oceans. Drawings still play a key role, as Scales recalls a conversation with an ichthyologist, who knew he would need to use both sketching and scientific skills to achieve a true classification of an odd-looking female deep-sea anglerfish.   Discovering the true state of affairs about women, girls and autism – that the prevalence of autism in this group has been underestimated – can only be good. But for neuroscientist Gina Rippon, it is also bittersweet. In this excellent, state-of-the-art account of autism in girls, she admits that by accepting the mantra that autism was much more common in boys, “I have been part of the problem I’m hoping this book will solve”. One person’s story she shares makes the point. “Alice” was a woman with two young sons – one neurotypical, the elder autistic. She had mental health struggles at university, and after nearly three years of pleading for an assessment, she was finally confirmed to be on the spectrum. Alice’s path had been strewn with diagnoses, including borderline personality disorder with social anxiety. But the light-bulb moment came when she took her son, “Peter”, to his first day at nursery school, anxious to see how he would settle. Peter dived into the melee, as Alice watched, stunned. She told Rippon, “He was a native of the world I had been watching from the outside… He just seemed to automatically… belong.” She realised that she was “looking at what not being autistic meant”.   Earth scientist Anjana Khatwa unites science and spirituality in a gorgeous journey through deep time, a personal view of the world of rocks and minerals. She explains how geology is at the heart of today’s biggest issues, how the field itself isn’t known for its diversity – and the origins of the ivory-white Makrana marble that made the Taj Mahal, among other structures.   What is Barney? Why do we remember the Sycamore Gap? How old is ancient? The answers lie in a truly ambitious, very fat, glorious book of trees, complete with maps, photographs and travel notes. It is built round the unusual idea of setting out in search of the 1000 best individual trees that grow in the towns and cities of Britain and Ireland. The handsome book spun out of Paul Wood’s field trip feels like an appropriately slow way to honour organisms that can live to 3000 years and that shape or are shaped by the places where they grow. Savour during the colder months, while you plan your own tree trip.   To understand orchids, think like a matchmaker, writes Sandra Knapp, a senior botanist at London’s Natural History Museum. She is discussing the reproductive habits of Angraecum cadetti in this book, part of the Earth Day series. This is a clever conceit: take any living thing, describe one species at a given hour across 24 hours, and illustrate it (here the illustrator is Katie Scott). Mushroom Day and Tree Day are also in 2025’s crop; Shell Day and Snake Day are planned for 2026. Knapp introduces flowers from everywhere, of every hue, size and reproductive system. There is a nod to Carl Linnaeus: the European chicory’s blue flowers occupy the 4am time slot, in line with his suggestion to plant them early morning.   Wired for Wisdom by Eszther Hargittai and John Palfrey “Do you need help with that?” Few words are as guaranteed to send a 60-plus adult who seems to be struggling with technology into a rage. How refreshing to find a book prepared to sift science from stereotype in what the authors call an especially “unsettled” research area of older adults and tech. One reason for the authors to weigh in early is that even though older adults are an increasing portion of Earth’s billions, they feel ignored – and subject to negative preconceptions by younger people. A healthy and inclusive society, say the authors, needs this older population on board. Among the book’s great takeaways are that older adults are less likely to fall for fake news or scams. Their use of mobile tech is also rising fast, with the number of over-60s in the US with smartphones rising from 13 per cent in 2012 to 61 per cent by 2021. With such buy-in, can we afford to indulge stereotypes?   The two friends to whom I gave copies of this book when it first came out 10 years ago hadn’t heard of Carlo Rovelli, but they both ended up loving it. Now there’s a special hardback anniversary issue out, to remind us that in a mere 79 pages, Rovelli’s lessons managed to span the theory of general relativity, quantum mechanics, black holes, elementary particles and more. After 10 years of polycrisis, re-reading the final chapter now seems to capture the human dilemma perfectly. An ultra-curious yet dangerous Homo on the brink of self-wrought destruction can still marvel at the world, because, Rovelli writes, “on the edge of what we know, in contact with the ocean of the unknown, shines the mystery and the beauty of the world. And it’s breathtaking.” The ideal gift for anyone you know who hasn’t read it yet, in a lovely new package.

Here's What Makes Someone 'Sexy,' According To Science

Jonathan Bailey was voted People's "Sexiest Man Alive." Experts weigh in on what factors make up attractiveness.

Every year, pop culture fiends dissect (or dissent) People magazine’s selection of the “Sexiest Man Alive.” Many popular celebrities have donned the crown, including Harry Hamlin (1987), Brad Pitt (1995 and 2000), Jude Law (2004), Idris Elba (2018), Michael B. Jordan (2020) and Chris Evans (2022). This year, the magazine tapped actor Jonathan Bailey for the honor.Neil Mockford via Getty ImagesJonathan Bailey has been named this year's Sexiest Man Alive by People.In a 2012 interview about the selection process, editor Julie Jordan told USA Today said the magazine staff takes note of how the general public feels about potential options throughout the year while also asking celebrities for their opinions on the matter. So what makes up this “feeling” that someone is sexy? According to experts, there are several factors ― and they aren’t just physical attributes. In fact, it’s based on an interplay of elements that relate to both nature and nurture, making “sexy” a highly variable adjective.“Sexiness is in the eye of the beholder,” Blanca Cobb, a trained body language expert, told HuffPost. “Some people are drawn to physical attributes of the face, voice can be seen as sexy depending on pitch, tone, and intonation. Someone might find the way another person smells or their aroma as sexy. Additionally, warm, open, confident body language can be a turn-on.”Here’s what else makes a person attractive, according to science:Our biology plays a big role — perhaps even the most influential one.“There are many theories in terms of factors that can enhance level of attractiveness that are surrounded by cultural aspects, such as generational trends and ethnic differences of preferences, evolutionary factors such as ‘curviness’ in women noting fertility, and proximity factors indicting we are attracted to what we see most and what we are exposed to around us,” explained Kelsey Latimer, a psychologist based in Florida. “This suggests that attraction has both biological and learned factors.”When talking about appeal, it’s important to distinguish between traditionally defined “good looks” and “sexiness.” According to Merriam-Webster, the latter term refers to someone who is “sexually suggestive or stimulating, interesting.” Sexiness, it seems, invokes a bodily reaction in the eye of the beholder.Someone might be good-looking, for example, without necessarily eliciting a physical response within the average person. When referring to somebody as sexy, on the other hand, we usually mean that they make us physically tingle, to put it simply. “There are evolutionary theories that help us understand that physical attraction is important because it makes us want to reproduce, which keeps the species alive,” Latimer said. “There are certain physical features of men and women that are seen to be highly associated with fertility that might be sparked on an innate level.”Smell, physical similarity and face symmetry also spark our brain to feel a level of attraction toward someone as well. However, noted the experts, trying to use a “one-size-fits-all” approach when analyzing the topic isn’t right.“The reality is if something were ‘innately’ attractive or not attractive, then trends would never change over time and ‘natural selection’ would have boiled us down into all looking the same,” Latimer said. “There is a lot of variation about what is attractive.”Personality is a huge factor as well.Experts are adamant about this: a person’s character and the way he or she presents him or herself to the world influences the way fellow humans perceive their potential sexiness. “Consider this: have you met someone that you might have considered average in physical appearance and then, after getting to know them, you suddenly realized they have a great smile or beautiful eyes?” Latimer said. “That’s not a coincidence. Personality absolutely can change the initial feeling of attraction for the positive or negative.” Although the staff in charge of crowning the sexiest man alive for People magazine each year may not know the various candidates’ personality traits, perhaps asking fellow celebrities for their opinions is a way to account for the behavioral aspect of sexiness.Cobb goes a step further: not only does she acknowledge that personality traits can affect sex appeal, but specific attributes make a difference. “Confidence in the way one speaks and acts can be appealing,” she noted. “Charisma can captivate someone’s attention because it reflects charm, magnetism, and social intelligence. An undervalued characteristic of sexiness is kindness, which reflects compassion, empathy and sensitivity, where the other person feels cared for and loved, which helps strengthen an emotional connection.”A 2017 study led at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, confirms this theory. The researchers analyzed a speed-dating event and noticed that the participants who were considered funny were also rated as more attractive than they were deemed at the start of the date.Our environment also matters.“Trends vary a lot based on time, generation, culture location and age,” said Latimer, adding that what makes men sexy to the eyes of others isn’t necessarily the same thing that adds sex appeal to a woman’s character. Similarly, cultural and geographical differences usually birth a diverse set of standards when it comes to attraction. For example, preferences in the U.S. are generally different in Spain, France, Italy and the Netherlands, Cobb said.What’s important to note is that environmental differences clearly affect what the general population may consider to be a favorable set of traits, making sexiness a pretty subjective characteristic that’s in constant flow. “What is sexy in America today might be what is seen as sexy in Asia tomorrow and vice versa,” Cobb said.So the conclusion? There isn’t one definitive marker for attractiveness; what gives one person a feeling that someone is sexy may be unappealing to another. But, that being said, we can certainly see the argument for Bailey.

Nobel Prize in Economics Awarded for Research on Science, Technology and Growth

Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt share the Nobel economics prize for work that underlines the importance of investing in research and development

October 14, 20254 min readEconomics Nobel Honors Work Linking Scientific Research to ProsperityJoel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt share the Nobel economics prize for work that underlines the importance of investing in research and developmentBy Philip Ball & Nature magazine Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt, winners of the 2025 Economics Nobel prize. Northwestern University, Patrick Imbert/Collège de France, Ashley McCabe/Brown UniversityThe 2025 Sveriges Riksbank Prize for Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel has been awarded to three researchers who have shown how technological and scientific innovation, coupled to market competition, drive economic growth.One half of the prize goes to economic-historian Joel Mokyr of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, and the other half is split between the economic theorists Philippe Aghion of the Collège de France and the London School of Economics and Peter Howitt of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.“I can’t find the words to express what I feel,” Aghion said. He says he will use the money for research in his laboratory at the Collège de France.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.The award “underlies the importance in investing in science for innovation and long-term economic growth”, says economist Diane Coyle of the University of Cambridge. “It's great to see the Nobel prize recognize the importance of this topic,” adds innovation policy researcher Richard Jones of the University of Manchester, UK. “It's important that economists understand the conditions that lead to technological progress,” he adds. The winners, says Coyle, “have long been on people’s list of potential candidates”.Old isn’t goldEconomic growth at a rate of about 1-2 per cent annually is the norm for industrialized nations today. But such growth rates did not happen in earlier times, despite technological innovations, such as the windmill and the printing press.Mokyr showed that the key difference between now and then was what he calls “useful knowledge”, or innovations based on scientific understanding. One example is the advances made during the Industrial Revolution, beginning in the eighteenth century, when improvements in steam engines could be made systematic rather than by trial and error.Aghion and Howitt, for their part, clarified the market mechanisms behind sustained growth in recent times. In 1992 they presented a model showing how competition between companies selling new products allows innovations to enter the marketplace and displaces older products: a process they called creative destruction.Underlying growth, in other words, is a steady churn of businesses and products. The researchers showed how companies invest in research and development (R&D) to improve their chances of finding a new product, and predicted the optimal level of such investment.Entrepreneurial stateAccording to economist Ufuk Akcigit of the University of Chicago, Aghion and Howitt highlight an important aspect of economic growth, which is that spending on R&D does not by itself guarantee higher rates of growth: “Unless we replace inefficient firms from the economy, we cannot make space for newcomers with new ideas and better technologies.”“When a new entrepreneur emerges, they have every incentive to come up with a radical new technology,” Akcigit says. “As soon as they become an incumbent, their incentive vanishes” and they no longer invest in R&D to drive innovation.Thus, because companies cannot expect to remain at the forefront of innovation indefinitely, the incentive for investing in R&D coming from market forces alone declines as a company’s market share grows. To guarantee the societal benefits of constant innovation, the model suggests that it is in society’s interests for the state to subsidize R&D, so long as the return is not merely incremental improvements.The work of all three laureates also acknowledges the complex social consequences of growth. In the early days of the Industrial Revolution there were concerns about how mechanisation would cause unemployment of manual workers – a worry echoed today with the increasing use of AI in place of human labour. But Mokyr showed that in fact early mechanization led to the creation of new jobs.Creative destruction, meanwhile, leads to companies failing and jobs being lost. Aghion and Howitt emphasized that society needs safety nets and constructive negotiation of conflicts to navigate such problems.Their model “recognizes the messiness and complexity of how innovation happens in real economies”, says Coyle. “The idea that a country’s productivity level increases by companies going bust and new ones coming in is a difficult sell, but the evidence that that’s part of the mechanism is pretty strong.”Timely messageThis year’s award comes at a time when funding for scientific research is under threat in the United States and around the world. “It’s a very timely message when we’re seeing the United States undermining so much of its science base,” says Coyle. Aghion said, “I don’t welcome the protectionist wave in the US” and added that “openness is a driver of growth. I see dark clouds accumulating”. to translate high-tech innovations into market value.Economic historian Kerstin Enflo, a member of the Nobel prize awarding committee, denied that the award was intended as a comment on the direction of US policies. “It is only about celebrating the work [the laureates] have done”, she said at the press conference.Green growthMore recently, researchers are questioning the ‘growth-at-all-costs’ narrative not least because of the ways to pursue growth has led to environmental degradation, including global warming.“How can we make sure we innovate greener?” Aghion asked. “Firms don’t spontaneously do this. So how can we redirect growth towards green?” Mokyr’s work showed that growth can sometimes be self-correcting in the sense of producing innovations needed to solve such problems. But that is not a given and requires well-crafted policies to nurture innovation without promoting inequality and unsustainability. “We need to harness the productivity potential and minimize the negative effects”, said Aghion.This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on October 13, 2025.

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.