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.

The Dirty Secret About How Our Hands Spread Disease

News Feed
Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Sabrina Sholts Curator, Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History “There is no act of life so dangerous to others,” fumed physician Robert Eccles in 1909, “as carelessness concerning the condition of our hands.” He really meant it. In a seven-page rant titled “Dirty Hands,” published in the Dietetic and Hygienic Gazette of New York City, Eccles blamed filthy fingers for the deadliest crimes of the age. Causing more deaths than “bullets, poisons, railway accidents and earthquakes combined,” the human hand was a weapon of mass destruction that extinguished innocent lives by the hour, according to this Brooklyn-based doctor. And Eccles was fighting back. With ample ammunition from research in bacteriology, a field in its heyday by the close of the 19th century, he had scientific proof that uncleanliness could transform hands into petri dishes of pathogens. “Until the HABIT is established of purifying the hands, both timely and properly, no lessening of this human misery seems possible under existing conditions,” Eccles declared. The main target of the doctor’s ire was a private cook named Mary Mallon, the notorious “Typhoid Mary” of medical lore, who was serving a sentence of forced isolation on North Brother Island in New York City’s East River. Mallon was arrested as a public health threat in 1907 after being identified as the source of seven household outbreaks of typhoid fever since 1900. Epidemiological evidence suggested that she infected her clients by preparing their meals with unclean hands—a charge that Mallon rejected. She didn’t deny her poor hand hygiene but also failed to see how she could have infected anyone. Typhoid fever has many symptoms, such as a prolonged high fever, headache and malaise, and Mallon had none of them. The disease is caused by the bacterium Salmonella typhi, which was well-described and identifiable with diagnostic tests by the 1890s. Untreated typhoid fever can be fatal in up to 30 percent of cases, and before the advent of antibiotics, it caused thousands of deaths in the United States each year. Only humans are infected by and transmit the pathogen, usually through food and water contaminated with Salmonella-filled urine or feces. This is likely how Mallon spread the disease given that laboratory analyses of her feces showed pathogens aplenty, which suggested that none of her trips from the bathroom to the kitchen involved soap. Vilified as “Typhoid Mary” by the press, Mary Mallon was arrested as a public health threat in 1907. Fotosearch / Stringer via Getty Images Mallon refused to believe that she was an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid fever, even after her release in 1910. She continued to cook, but she didn’t adopt the hand-washing habit that Eccles preached. Thus he was probably pleased by the further punishment that she faced for her dirty hands when health authorities tracked her down again. After more people had fallen ill and died from her contaminated cuisine, she was arrested and isolated for a second time in 1915, with a sentence that lasted the rest of her life. The story of Mallon holds many lessons, and the danger of unclean hands is one of them. But still today, disease risks frequently involve pathogens and routes of transmission that we fail to recognize. I recall when virologist Matt Frieman made this point effectively at a workshop in 2017. The scientists in attendance were invited to present and discuss their research with a group of filmmakers, and Matt’s topic was perfect for a Hollywood movie: deadly viruses that have recently emerged in humans. When Matt finished his presentation, one filmmaker asked him how much we needed to worry about these pathogens at present. You could hear the alarm in her voice. And without missing a beat, Matt replied, “Right now, our most immediate threat is a norovirus outbreak from that jar of cookies by the bathrooms.” He was right. In our meeting venue, arranged by one of the premier scientific organizations in the United States, there was an inviting jar of chocolate chip cookies on a small table … directly on the path to and from the toilets. Like Salmonella typhi, norovirus is an intestinal pathogen that’s commonly spread through contaminated food, water and surfaces. It’s one of the world’s leading causes of gastroenteritis (also known as stomach flu) and extremely contagious, partly because a small dose can cause infection. Incredibly, a sick person can shed billions of tiny particles of norovirus in their stool and vomit, and it takes as few as 18 of those particles to infect another person. Norovirus is also highly transmissible because it’s picked up and left all over the place by our grabby hands. For an example, look to the utterly miserable weekend of an Oregon girls soccer team in 2010. While sharing hotel rooms at an out-of-state tournament, several of the team’s members fell ill with acute gastroenteritis. The first girl to become sick—called the index patient—had used a bathroom where a grocery bag of snacks was being stored. She didn’t actually touch the bag or its contents but instead contaminated their surfaces by vomiting, excreting diarrhea and flushing the toilet—all of which can aerosolize noroviruses, thereby making them airborne. The index patient went home the next morning, but cookies, chips and fresh grapes in the grocery bag were passed around at the team’s lunch that afternoon. Within 48 hours, seven other players and chaperones became sick, too. Sickness is often a helpful signal of infection. It tells the patient, as well as the rest of us, to steer clear. But like Salmonella typhi, norovirus infections can be contagious without any symptoms at all. People can shed the virus in their feces before they start to feel sick or for weeks after they begin to feel better. Hand washing is therefore one of the simplest and most effective ways to prevent transmission. Placing treats far away from the restrooms is another one. How our hands work Our hands wouldn’t work so well as disease vectors if we didn’t use them so much. And we wouldn’t use them so much if there weren’t so much that they can do. So before we delve further into a discussion of how humans give a helping hand to pathogens in their transmission, let’s consider what makes our hands so helpful in the first place. Put one hand flat on a surface, palm down, and you might be able to make out the contours of 14 short bones called phalanges in your thumb and fingers, in addition to five longer ones in your palm called metacarpals that articulate with your wrist. Eight small wrist bones called carpals are mostly hidden from external view. Some of them are surprisingly charismatic in shape, resembling miniature forms of common objects that range from a boot to a boat. But there’s nothing cute about what they do. These 27 bones give each hand its rigid, knuckled structure, while joined and surrounded with muscles, tendons, ligaments, blood vessels and nerves that connect with other elements of the body and carry out directions from the brain. Together they’re critical components of the anatomical architecture that allows your hand to move. At each of your fingertips there’s an ever-growing, translucent plate of fibrous protein called keratin, otherwise known as a nail. Although they’re nice for decoration, your nails protect and enhance your sensitivity to touch, too. Flip your hand over, and you can better understand how. The nails provide a hard backing for fibrofatty cushions of flesh at each of your fingertips, five fingertip pads in addition to several palm pads on the underside of each hand. Extremely creased and furrowed, these pulpy little pillows of nerve endings have some of the highest concentrations of receptors in all the skin, making them highly sensitive to sensory stimuli. Try them out with a tap or two—but be careful! Fingertip injuries are potentially debilitating and common, particularly in curious young children who use their hands to explore their environment without realizing the physical dangers involved. Even beyond childhood, through touch sensations and tactile perceptions of temperature, texture and vibration transmitted to the brain, fingers are essential to how most people contact and interact with the external world throughout life. Human hands have some minor distinctions among primates that make a big difference. The human hand can be distinguished from those of other living apes by a high thumb-to-digit ratio, meaning that we have a relatively long thumb when measured against the fingers on the same hand. One major advantage of these hand proportions is that our thumb can be placed squarely in pad-to-pad contact with, or positioned diametrically opposite to, any or all of our fingers. Thumb opposition isn’t unique to humans, and in fact an opposable thumb facilitates the enhanced grasping abilities of many primates. But what sets our thumb apart is its power. Modern humans have a unique combination and greater number of forearm muscles versus other primates, as well as a notable musculature in the thumb. Altogether, these features allow humans to firmly and precisely grip objects for certain types of manipulation that other animals, even our living primate relatives, can’t achieve. Imagine pinching a piece of paper between your thumb and index finger, for example. We use this type of forceful, pad-to-pad precision gripping without thinking about it, and literally in a snap. Yet it was a breakthrough in human evolution. Other primates exhibit some kinds of precision grips in the handling and use of objects, but not with the kind of efficient opposition that our hand anatomy allows. In a single hand, humans can easily hold and manipulate objects, even small and delicate ones, while adjusting our fingers to their shape and reorienting them with displacements of our fingertip pads. Our relatively long, powerful thumb and other anatomical attributes, including our flat nails (which nearly all primates possess), make this possible. Just picture trying—and failing—to dog-ear a page in a book with pointy, curved claws. With a unique combination of traits, the human hand shaped history. No question, stone tools couldn’t have become a keystone of human technology and subsistence without hands that could do the job, along with a nervous system that could regulate and coordinate the necessary signals. Even for those who have never attempted to make a spear tip or arrowhead from a rock (which is most of you), it’s obvious that it would require strong grips, constant rotation and repositioning, and forceful, careful strikes with another hard object. And even for those who have done so, it can be a bloody business. A journey through history and around the globe to examine how and why pandemics are an inescapable threat of our own making. But our manual dexterity isn’t determined by our hand anatomy alone. Our nervous system, which involves the brain, spinal cord and a complex system of nerves, exerts control over our hand movements. Indeed, neurological factors may partly explain why primate species with similar hands can differ quite a bit in their mechanical abilities. For example, the tufted capuchin and common squirrel monkey both have pseudo-opposable thumbs, but only the capuchin displays relatively independent finger movements and precision gripping in picking up small objects and manipulating tools. Functional differences in their neuroanatomy may be the cause. Of course, the most common object that people touch nowadays is a screen. And the tap-tap-tap movements of our fingers is a unique human ability, as no other primate can move their fingers as rapidly and independently as we do. Here again, we can thank the extraordinary human brain given that normal finger tapping requires the functional integrity of different parts of our central nervous system. Moreover, repetitive rapid finger tapping is a common test of fine motor control of the upper extremities as well as a standard means of assessing the potential effects of neurodegenerative disease and traumatic brain injury. While a human can turn the page of a book using forceful thumb-finger opposition, other apes can’t form this pad-to-pad “precision grip” due to the relative shortness of the thumb compared to the other fingers, as seen in the left hand of this chimpanzee. Instead, this chimpanzee is gripping the pages of a magazine by holding them between the knuckles of its right hand. Mertie . via Flickr under CC By-SA 2.0 Deed Our use of information technology, like smartphones and computers, is often described as having the world at our fingertips. But this metaphor makes sense when it comes to microbes, too. Microbes and our hands The vast majority of microbes on and in the human body are persistent but harmless colonists. Those on the hand are no exception. Many of the microbes at our fingertips provide important benefits for human health. For instance, one of the key functions of the skin microbiota, which are mostly bacteria, is acid resistance. By regulating the acidity of the skin, these microbes help to maintain a powerful permeability barrier that prevents water and electrolyte loss from the body—a requirement for life in terrestrial animals like us. Our skin barrier also prevents infectious diseases and allergies by blocking external substances such as pathogens, allergens and chemicals from invading the body. At least that’s how the barrier is supposed to work. But even though many of the microbes that come in contact with or reside on the skin are normally unable to establish an infection, any break in the skin from a cut, scrape, burn or bite can be the entry point of an invading pathogen, such as Ebola virus from the infected blood of a mammalian host or Zika virus from the infected saliva of a mosquito vector. But these aren’t the most frequent ways that our hands participate in the spread of infectious diseases. Rather, our hands are critical in the indirect transmission of pathogens between people via contaminated objects and surfaces, as Mary Mallon did throughout her career. Called fomites, these risky objects are everywhere: phones, faucets, doorknobs, elevator buttons, dishtowels, utensils, food, you name it. We touch these things and the microbes on them literally all the time. Parents won’t be surprised that children can touch objects and surfaces more than 600 times per hour during outdoor play. At the same time, these little explorers might touch their mouths or someone else’s about 20 times an hour. Yet adults do this quite a bit, too. Regardless of age or sex, we might touch our faces up to 800 times a day. Often the touch comes from an automatic and unconscious movement, and so if you think you’re an exception, it could be that you simply don’t remember. For instance, when prompted to recall nonverbal behaviors during interpersonal interactions, the subjects of one study showed the lowest accuracy in estimating how many self-touches they made. Hand contact with the mouth, nose and eyes—sometimes called the facial T-zone by infectious disease researchers—is the riskiest kind of face touching. That’s because the mucous membranes that line these structures can serve as staging grounds for microbial pathogenesis, the process by which microbes cause disease. People have been observed touching their T-zone around eight times an hour in public places, and the number nearly doubles for kids. In medical offices, some health care workers make T-zone touches with the same frequency as people do in public, although clinicians do so slightly less often. But believe it or not, medical students can be even worse. In one study, they were observed touching their face 23 times per hour while listening to a lecture—after completing coursework in infection control and transmission precautions, no less. And almost half of those touches involved contact with a mucous membrane. Hand contacts with fomites and mucous membranes are a potentially dangerous combination. People who are infected with pathogens can expel them from their bodies in saliva, mucus, blood, urine and feces as well as in respiratory secretions in the form of droplets and aerosols. These pathogens can be deposited on or transferred to fomites in a variety of ways, from an explosive sneeze or casual touch. Then the pathogens can survive and remain infectious on fomites for varying lengths of time, from a few hours in some cases to several months in others depending on variables related to the pathogen, the fomite and their environmental conditions. Many people were made aware of these possibilities during the Covid-19 pandemic, when the earliest recommendations from health officials included washing your hands, cleaning surfaces and not touching your face. Some pathogens are more likely than others to spread via fomite and hand-to-hand contact, even if SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t appear to be one of them. This is the case for some gastrointestinal pathogens like Salmonella typhi, norovirus and poliovirus, which usually follow a route of fecal-oral transmission. Others such as Vibrio cholerae (bacteria that cause cholera) and Escherichia coli (bacteria that can cause a variety of infections depending on the strain) are more likely to spread through fecal contamination of food and water. But fomite-mediated transmission is also a concern for some respiratory pathogens like rhinovirus, which is the predominant cause of the common cold. One study found that around 14 percent of the rhinovirus on an individual’s fingers was transferred to another individual via a doorknob or faucet, and half as much via hand-to-hand contact. Furthermore, another study found that after an overnight stay in a hotel, adults with natural rhinovirus colds contaminated about 35 percent of the 150 environmental sites tested, such as pens, light switches, remote controls and telephones. In one-third of the trials, the study’s subjects indirectly transferred the virus to other people’s fingertips up to 18 hours after contaminating these surfaces. If this isn’t an argument for hand hygiene, then I don’t know what is. And this argument long preceded Mallon. In 1847, when Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis devised the interventions that would earn him the title of “the father of hand hygiene,” the discipline of medicine was on the verge of a revolution. Surgeons had just started using general anesthesia when operating on patients, who were able to experience painless operations as never before. Anesthesia was also first used for childbirth in 1845, at a time when maternal death was far too common; in general, for every thousand babies born during the 19th century, as many as ten mothers died. One of the major causes of maternal mortality was childbirth-related septicemia, known as puerperal fever or childbed fever—later found to be caused by Streptococcus pyogenes bacteria. Between 1841 and 1847, puerperal fever was responsible for up to 16 percent of maternal deaths at the hospital in Vienna, where Semmelweis worked. Mothers died far more frequently, however, in one of the hospital’s obstetric wards than in the other one. And Semmelweis seized the opportunity to understand why and how. He examined the mortality statistics at the hospital over decades, finding that the mortality rates of the two wards diverged after 1841. At that time, one of the wards became staffed only with midwives. In the other one, deliveries were performed by medical students and doctors, who also conducted autopsies in a nearby room. After one of the hospital’s pathologists died following a scalpel slip during an autopsy, from which he succumbed to a condition similar to puerperal fever, Semmelweis made the cadaver connection. Concluding that the medical students and obstetricians were causing puerperal fever in their pregnant patients by infecting them with cadaverous particles on their hands, Semmelweis instituted some harsh protocols. Everyone had to scrub their hands with a chlorinated lime solution after leaving the autopsy room and before contact with a patient. Why chlorinated lime? Because Semmelweis didn’t think that soap and water were strong enough to remove the culprits of contagion from post-autopsy hands, and chlorinated lime solution was the strongest product used by the housekeeping staff at the hospital.Excerpted from The Human Disease: How We Create Pandemics, From Our Bodies to Our Beliefs by Sabrina Sholts. Published by The MIT Press. Compilation Copyright Smithsonian Institution © 2024. All rights reserved. Get the latest Science stories in your inbox. A Note to our Readers Smithsonian magazine participates in affiliate link advertising programs. If you purchase an item through these links, we receive a commission.

The human hand is an incredible tool—and a deadly threat

Sabrina Sholts

Curator, Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History

“There is no act of life so dangerous to others,” fumed physician Robert Eccles in 1909, “as carelessness concerning the condition of our hands.”

He really meant it. In a seven-page rant titled “Dirty Hands,” published in the Dietetic and Hygienic Gazette of New York City, Eccles blamed filthy fingers for the deadliest crimes of the age. Causing more deaths than “bullets, poisons, railway accidents and earthquakes combined,” the human hand was a weapon of mass destruction that extinguished innocent lives by the hour, according to this Brooklyn-based doctor. And Eccles was fighting back. With ample ammunition from research in bacteriology, a field in its heyday by the close of the 19th century, he had scientific proof that uncleanliness could transform hands into petri dishes of pathogens. “Until the HABIT is established of purifying the hands, both timely and properly, no lessening of this human misery seems possible under existing conditions,” Eccles declared.

The main target of the doctor’s ire was a private cook named Mary Mallon, the notorious “Typhoid Mary” of medical lore, who was serving a sentence of forced isolation on North Brother Island in New York City’s East River. Mallon was arrested as a public health threat in 1907 after being identified as the source of seven household outbreaks of typhoid fever since 1900.

Epidemiological evidence suggested that she infected her clients by preparing their meals with unclean hands—a charge that Mallon rejected. She didn’t deny her poor hand hygiene but also failed to see how she could have infected anyone. Typhoid fever has many symptoms, such as a prolonged high fever, headache and malaise, and Mallon had none of them.

The disease is caused by the bacterium Salmonella typhi, which was well-described and identifiable with diagnostic tests by the 1890s. Untreated typhoid fever can be fatal in up to 30 percent of cases, and before the advent of antibiotics, it caused thousands of deaths in the United States each year. Only humans are infected by and transmit the pathogen, usually through food and water contaminated with Salmonella-filled urine or feces. This is likely how Mallon spread the disease given that laboratory analyses of her feces showed pathogens aplenty, which suggested that none of her trips from the bathroom to the kitchen involved soap.

Typhoid Mary
Vilified as “Typhoid Mary” by the press, Mary Mallon was arrested as a public health threat in 1907. Fotosearch / Stringer via Getty Images

Mallon refused to believe that she was an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid fever, even after her release in 1910. She continued to cook, but she didn’t adopt the hand-washing habit that Eccles preached. Thus he was probably pleased by the further punishment that she faced for her dirty hands when health authorities tracked her down again. After more people had fallen ill and died from her contaminated cuisine, she was arrested and isolated for a second time in 1915, with a sentence that lasted the rest of her life.

The story of Mallon holds many lessons, and the danger of unclean hands is one of them. But still today, disease risks frequently involve pathogens and routes of transmission that we fail to recognize. I recall when virologist Matt Frieman made this point effectively at a workshop in 2017. The scientists in attendance were invited to present and discuss their research with a group of filmmakers, and Matt’s topic was perfect for a Hollywood movie: deadly viruses that have recently emerged in humans. When Matt finished his presentation, one filmmaker asked him how much we needed to worry about these pathogens at present. You could hear the alarm in her voice. And without missing a beat, Matt replied, “Right now, our most immediate threat is a norovirus outbreak from that jar of cookies by the bathrooms.”

He was right. In our meeting venue, arranged by one of the premier scientific organizations in the United States, there was an inviting jar of chocolate chip cookies on a small table … directly on the path to and from the toilets.

Like Salmonella typhi, norovirus is an intestinal pathogen that’s commonly spread through contaminated food, water and surfaces. It’s one of the world’s leading causes of gastroenteritis (also known as stomach flu) and extremely contagious, partly because a small dose can cause infection. Incredibly, a sick person can shed billions of tiny particles of norovirus in their stool and vomit, and it takes as few as 18 of those particles to infect another person. Norovirus is also highly transmissible because it’s picked up and left all over the place by our grabby hands.

For an example, look to the utterly miserable weekend of an Oregon girls soccer team in 2010. While sharing hotel rooms at an out-of-state tournament, several of the team’s members fell ill with acute gastroenteritis. The first girl to become sick—called the index patient—had used a bathroom where a grocery bag of snacks was being stored. She didn’t actually touch the bag or its contents but instead contaminated their surfaces by vomiting, excreting diarrhea and flushing the toilet—all of which can aerosolize noroviruses, thereby making them airborne. The index patient went home the next morning, but cookies, chips and fresh grapes in the grocery bag were passed around at the team’s lunch that afternoon. Within 48 hours, seven other players and chaperones became sick, too.

Sickness is often a helpful signal of infection. It tells the patient, as well as the rest of us, to steer clear. But like Salmonella typhi, norovirus infections can be contagious without any symptoms at all. People can shed the virus in their feces before they start to feel sick or for weeks after they begin to feel better. Hand washing is therefore one of the simplest and most effective ways to prevent transmission. Placing treats far away from the restrooms is another one.

How our hands work

Our hands wouldn’t work so well as disease vectors if we didn’t use them so much. And we wouldn’t use them so much if there weren’t so much that they can do. So before we delve further into a discussion of how humans give a helping hand to pathogens in their transmission, let’s consider what makes our hands so helpful in the first place.

Put one hand flat on a surface, palm down, and you might be able to make out the contours of 14 short bones called phalanges in your thumb and fingers, in addition to five longer ones in your palm called metacarpals that articulate with your wrist. Eight small wrist bones called carpals are mostly hidden from external view. Some of them are surprisingly charismatic in shape, resembling miniature forms of common objects that range from a boot to a boat. But there’s nothing cute about what they do. These 27 bones give each hand its rigid, knuckled structure, while joined and surrounded with muscles, tendons, ligaments, blood vessels and nerves that connect with other elements of the body and carry out directions from the brain. Together they’re critical components of the anatomical architecture that allows your hand to move.

At each of your fingertips there’s an ever-growing, translucent plate of fibrous protein called keratin, otherwise known as a nail. Although they’re nice for decoration, your nails protect and enhance your sensitivity to touch, too. Flip your hand over, and you can better understand how. The nails provide a hard backing for fibrofatty cushions of flesh at each of your fingertips, five fingertip pads in addition to several palm pads on the underside of each hand. Extremely creased and furrowed, these pulpy little pillows of nerve endings have some of the highest concentrations of receptors in all the skin, making them highly sensitive to sensory stimuli. Try them out with a tap or two—but be careful! Fingertip injuries are potentially debilitating and common, particularly in curious young children who use their hands to explore their environment without realizing the physical dangers involved. Even beyond childhood, through touch sensations and tactile perceptions of temperature, texture and vibration transmitted to the brain, fingers are essential to how most people contact and interact with the external world throughout life.

Human hands have some minor distinctions among primates that make a big difference. The human hand can be distinguished from those of other living apes by a high thumb-to-digit ratio, meaning that we have a relatively long thumb when measured against the fingers on the same hand. One major advantage of these hand proportions is that our thumb can be placed squarely in pad-to-pad contact with, or positioned diametrically opposite to, any or all of our fingers. Thumb opposition isn’t unique to humans, and in fact an opposable thumb facilitates the enhanced grasping abilities of many primates. But what sets our thumb apart is its power. Modern humans have a unique combination and greater number of forearm muscles versus other primates, as well as a notable musculature in the thumb. Altogether, these features allow humans to firmly and precisely grip objects for certain types of manipulation that other animals, even our living primate relatives, can’t achieve.

Imagine pinching a piece of paper between your thumb and index finger, for example. We use this type of forceful, pad-to-pad precision gripping without thinking about it, and literally in a snap. Yet it was a breakthrough in human evolution. Other primates exhibit some kinds of precision grips in the handling and use of objects, but not with the kind of efficient opposition that our hand anatomy allows. In a single hand, humans can easily hold and manipulate objects, even small and delicate ones, while adjusting our fingers to their shape and reorienting them with displacements of our fingertip pads. Our relatively long, powerful thumb and other anatomical attributes, including our flat nails (which nearly all primates possess), make this possible. Just picture trying—and failing—to dog-ear a page in a book with pointy, curved claws.

With a unique combination of traits, the human hand shaped history. No question, stone tools couldn’t have become a keystone of human technology and subsistence without hands that could do the job, along with a nervous system that could regulate and coordinate the necessary signals. Even for those who have never attempted to make a spear tip or arrowhead from a rock (which is most of you), it’s obvious that it would require strong grips, constant rotation and repositioning, and forceful, careful strikes with another hard object. And even for those who have done so, it can be a bloody business.

A journey through history and around the globe to examine how and why pandemics are an inescapable threat of our own making.

But our manual dexterity isn’t determined by our hand anatomy alone. Our nervous system, which involves the brain, spinal cord and a complex system of nerves, exerts control over our hand movements. Indeed, neurological factors may partly explain why primate species with similar hands can differ quite a bit in their mechanical abilities. For example, the tufted capuchin and common squirrel monkey both have pseudo-opposable thumbs, but only the capuchin displays relatively independent finger movements and precision gripping in picking up small objects and manipulating tools. Functional differences in their neuroanatomy may be the cause.

Of course, the most common object that people touch nowadays is a screen. And the tap-tap-tap movements of our fingers is a unique human ability, as no other primate can move their fingers as rapidly and independently as we do. Here again, we can thank the extraordinary human brain given that normal finger tapping requires the functional integrity of different parts of our central nervous system. Moreover, repetitive rapid finger tapping is a common test of fine motor control of the upper extremities as well as a standard means of assessing the potential effects of neurodegenerative disease and traumatic brain injury.

Chimp With Newspaper
While a human can turn the page of a book using forceful thumb-finger opposition, other apes can’t form this pad-to-pad “precision grip” due to the relative shortness of the thumb compared to the other fingers, as seen in the left hand of this chimpanzee. Instead, this chimpanzee is gripping the pages of a magazine by holding them between the knuckles of its right hand. Mertie . via Flickr under CC By-SA 2.0 Deed

Our use of information technology, like smartphones and computers, is often described as having the world at our fingertips. But this metaphor makes sense when it comes to microbes, too.

Microbes and our hands

The vast majority of microbes on and in the human body are persistent but harmless colonists. Those on the hand are no exception.

Many of the microbes at our fingertips provide important benefits for human health. For instance, one of the key functions of the skin microbiota, which are mostly bacteria, is acid resistance. By regulating the acidity of the skin, these microbes help to maintain a powerful permeability barrier that prevents water and electrolyte loss from the body—a requirement for life in terrestrial animals like us.

Our skin barrier also prevents infectious diseases and allergies by blocking external substances such as pathogens, allergens and chemicals from invading the body.

At least that’s how the barrier is supposed to work. But even though many of the microbes that come in contact with or reside on the skin are normally unable to establish an infection, any break in the skin from a cut, scrape, burn or bite can be the entry point of an invading pathogen, such as Ebola virus from the infected blood of a mammalian host or Zika virus from the infected saliva of a mosquito vector.

But these aren’t the most frequent ways that our hands participate in the spread of infectious diseases. Rather, our hands are critical in the indirect transmission of pathogens between people via contaminated objects and surfaces, as Mary Mallon did throughout her career. Called fomites, these risky objects are everywhere: phones, faucets, doorknobs, elevator buttons, dishtowels, utensils, food, you name it. We touch these things and the microbes on them literally all the time.

Parents won’t be surprised that children can touch objects and surfaces more than 600 times per hour during outdoor play. At the same time, these little explorers might touch their mouths or someone else’s about 20 times an hour. Yet adults do this quite a bit, too. Regardless of age or sex, we might touch our faces up to 800 times a day. Often the touch comes from an automatic and unconscious movement, and so if you think you’re an exception, it could be that you simply don’t remember. For instance, when prompted to recall nonverbal behaviors during interpersonal interactions, the subjects of one study showed the lowest accuracy in estimating how many self-touches they made.

Hand contact with the mouth, nose and eyes—sometimes called the facial T-zone by infectious disease researchers—is the riskiest kind of face touching. That’s because the mucous membranes that line these structures can serve as staging grounds for microbial pathogenesis, the process by which microbes cause disease. People have been observed touching their T-zone around eight times an hour in public places, and the number nearly doubles for kids. In medical offices, some health care workers make T-zone touches with the same frequency as people do in public, although clinicians do so slightly less often. But believe it or not, medical students can be even worse. In one study, they were observed touching their face 23 times per hour while listening to a lecture—after completing coursework in infection control and transmission precautions, no less. And almost half of those touches involved contact with a mucous membrane.

Hand contacts with fomites and mucous membranes are a potentially dangerous combination. People who are infected with pathogens can expel them from their bodies in saliva, mucus, blood, urine and feces as well as in respiratory secretions in the form of droplets and aerosols. These pathogens can be deposited on or transferred to fomites in a variety of ways, from an explosive sneeze or casual touch. Then the pathogens can survive and remain infectious on fomites for varying lengths of time, from a few hours in some cases to several months in others depending on variables related to the pathogen, the fomite and their environmental conditions. Many people were made aware of these possibilities during the Covid-19 pandemic, when the earliest recommendations from health officials included washing your hands, cleaning surfaces and not touching your face.

Some pathogens are more likely than others to spread via fomite and hand-to-hand contact, even if SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t appear to be one of them.

This is the case for some gastrointestinal pathogens like Salmonella typhi, norovirus and poliovirus, which usually follow a route of fecal-oral transmission. Others such as Vibrio cholerae (bacteria that cause cholera) and Escherichia coli (bacteria that can cause a variety of infections depending on the strain) are more likely to spread through fecal contamination of food and water.

But fomite-mediated transmission is also a concern for some respiratory pathogens like rhinovirus, which is the predominant cause of the common cold. One study found that around 14 percent of the rhinovirus on an individual’s fingers was transferred to another individual via a doorknob or faucet, and half as much via hand-to-hand contact. Furthermore, another study found that after an overnight stay in a hotel, adults with natural rhinovirus colds contaminated about 35 percent of the 150 environmental sites tested, such as pens, light switches, remote controls and telephones.

In one-third of the trials, the study’s subjects indirectly transferred the virus to other people’s fingertips up to 18 hours after contaminating these surfaces. If this isn’t an argument for hand hygiene, then I don’t know what is.

And this argument long preceded Mallon.

In 1847, when Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis devised the interventions that would earn him the title of “the father of hand hygiene,” the discipline of medicine was on the verge of a revolution. Surgeons had just started using general anesthesia when operating on patients, who were able to experience painless operations as never before. Anesthesia was also first used for childbirth in 1845, at a time when maternal death was far too common; in general, for every thousand babies born during the 19th century, as many as ten mothers died. One of the major causes of maternal mortality was childbirth-related septicemia, known as puerperal fever or childbed fever—later found to be caused by Streptococcus pyogenes bacteria. Between 1841 and 1847, puerperal fever was responsible for up to 16 percent of maternal deaths at the hospital in Vienna, where Semmelweis worked. Mothers died far more frequently, however, in one of the hospital’s obstetric wards than in the other one. And Semmelweis seized the opportunity to understand why and how.

He examined the mortality statistics at the hospital over decades, finding that the mortality rates of the two wards diverged after 1841. At that time, one of the wards became staffed only with midwives. In the other one, deliveries were performed by medical students and doctors, who also conducted autopsies in a nearby room. After one of the hospital’s pathologists died following a scalpel slip during an autopsy, from which he succumbed to a condition similar to puerperal fever, Semmelweis made the cadaver connection.

Concluding that the medical students and obstetricians were causing puerperal fever in their pregnant patients by infecting them with cadaverous particles on their hands, Semmelweis instituted some harsh protocols. Everyone had to scrub their hands with a chlorinated lime solution after leaving the autopsy room and before contact with a patient. Why chlorinated lime? Because Semmelweis didn’t think that soap and water were strong enough to remove the culprits of contagion from post-autopsy hands, and chlorinated lime solution was the strongest product used by the housekeeping staff at the hospital.

Excerpted from The Human Disease: How We Create Pandemics, From Our Bodies to Our Beliefs

by Sabrina Sholts. Published by The MIT Press. Compilation Copyright Smithsonian Institution © 2024. All rights reserved.

Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

A Note to our Readers
Smithsonian magazine participates in affiliate link advertising programs. If you purchase an item through these links, we receive a commission.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

A “scientific sandbox” lets researchers explore the evolution of vision systems

The AI-powered tool could inform the design of better sensors and cameras for robots or autonomous vehicles.

Why did humans evolve the eyes we have today?While scientists can’t go back in time to study the environmental pressures that shaped the evolution of the diverse vision systems that exist in nature, a new computational framework developed by MIT researchers allows them to explore this evolution in artificial intelligence agents.The framework they developed, in which embodied AI agents evolve eyes and learn to see over many generations, is like a “scientific sandbox” that allows researchers to recreate different evolutionary trees. The user does this by changing the structure of the world and the tasks AI agents complete, such as finding food or telling objects apart.This allows them to study why one animal may have evolved simple, light-sensitive patches as eyes, while another has complex, camera-type eyes.The researchers’ experiments with this framework showcase how tasks drove eye evolution in the agents. For instance, they found that navigation tasks often led to the evolution of compound eyes with many individual units, like the eyes of insects and crustaceans.On the other hand, if agents focused on object discrimination, they were more likely to evolve camera-type eyes with irises and retinas.This framework could enable scientists to probe “what-if” questions about vision systems that are difficult to study experimentally. It could also guide the design of novel sensors and cameras for robots, drones, and wearable devices that balance performance with real-world constraints like energy efficiency and manufacturability.“While we can never go back and figure out every detail of how evolution took place, in this work we’ve created an environment where we can, in a sense, recreate evolution and probe the environment in all these different ways. This method of doing science opens to the door to a lot of possibilities,” says Kushagra Tiwary, a graduate student at the MIT Media Lab and co-lead author of a paper on this research.He is joined on the paper by co-lead author and fellow graduate student Aaron Young; graduate student Tzofi Klinghoffer; former postdoc Akshat Dave, who is now an assistant professor at Stony Brook University; Tomaso Poggio, the Eugene McDermott Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, an investigator in the McGovern Institute, and co-director of the Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines; co-senior authors Brian Cheung, a postdoc in the  Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines and an incoming assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco; and Ramesh Raskar, associate professor of media arts and sciences and leader of the Camera Culture Group at MIT; as well as others at Rice University and Lund University. The research appears today in Science Advances.Building a scientific sandboxThe paper began as a conversation among the researchers about discovering new vision systems that could be useful in different fields, like robotics. To test their “what-if” questions, the researchers decided to use AI to explore the many evolutionary possibilities.“What-if questions inspired me when I was growing up to study science. With AI, we have a unique opportunity to create these embodied agents that allow us to ask the kinds of questions that would usually be impossible to answer,” Tiwary says.To build this evolutionary sandbox, the researchers took all the elements of a camera, like the sensors, lenses, apertures, and processors, and converted them into parameters that an embodied AI agent could learn.They used those building blocks as the starting point for an algorithmic learning mechanism an agent would use as it evolved eyes over time.“We couldn’t simulate the entire universe atom-by-atom. It was challenging to determine which ingredients we needed, which ingredients we didn’t need, and how to allocate resources over those different elements,” Cheung says.In their framework, this evolutionary algorithm can choose which elements to evolve based on the constraints of the environment and the task of the agent.Each environment has a single task, such as navigation, food identification, or prey tracking, designed to mimic real visual tasks animals must overcome to survive. The agents start with a single photoreceptor that looks out at the world and an associated neural network model that processes visual information.Then, over each agent’s lifetime, it is trained using reinforcement learning, a trial-and-error technique where the agent is rewarded for accomplishing the goal of its task. The environment also incorporates constraints, like a certain number of pixels for an agent’s visual sensors.“These constraints drive the design process, the same way we have physical constraints in our world, like the physics of light, that have driven the design of our own eyes,” Tiwary says.Over many generations, agents evolve different elements of vision systems that maximize rewards.Their framework uses a genetic encoding mechanism to computationally mimic evolution, where individual genes mutate to control an agent’s development.For instance, morphological genes capture how the agent views the environment and control eye placement; optical genes determine how the eye interacts with light and dictate the number of photoreceptors; and neural genes control the learning capacity of the agents.Testing hypothesesWhen the researchers set up experiments in this framework, they found that tasks had a major influence on the vision systems the agents evolved.For instance, agents that were focused on navigation tasks developed eyes designed to maximize spatial awareness through low-resolution sensing, while agents tasked with detecting objects developed eyes focused more on frontal acuity, rather than peripheral vision.Another experiment indicated that a bigger brain isn’t always better when it comes to processing visual information. Only so much visual information can go into the system at a time, based on physical constraints like the number of photoreceptors in the eyes.“At some point a bigger brain doesn’t help the agents at all, and in nature that would be a waste of resources,” Cheung says.In the future, the researchers want to use this simulator to explore the best vision systems for specific applications, which could help scientists develop task-specific sensors and cameras. They also want to integrate LLMs into their framework to make it easier for users to ask “what-if” questions and study additional possibilities.“There’s a real benefit that comes from asking questions in a more imaginative way. I hope this inspires others to create larger frameworks, where instead of focusing on narrow questions that cover a specific area, they are looking to answer questions with a much wider scope,” Cheung says.This work was supported, in part, by the Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Mathematics for the Discovery of Algorithms and Architectures (DIAL) program.

Common household rat poisons found to pose unacceptable risk to wildlife as animal advocates push for ban

Environmentalists say proposed temporary suspension of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides ‘doesn’t go far enough’Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastCommonly available rat poisons pose unacceptable risks to native wildlife, according to a government review that has stopped short of recommending a blanket ban on the products, to the consternation of animal advocates.The long-awaited review of first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides – FGARs and SGARs – has recommended the cancellation of some products, but a large array of waxes, pellets and blocks could continue to be sold to consumers subject to stricter labelling and conditions of use. Continue reading...

Commonly available rat poisons pose unacceptable risks to native wildlife, according to a government review that has stopped short of recommending a blanket ban on the products, to the consternation of animal advocates.The long-awaited review of first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides – FGARs and SGARs – has recommended the cancellation of some products, but a large array of waxes, pellets and blocks could continue to be sold to consumers subject to stricter labelling and conditions of use.Baits containing anticoagulant rodenticides are widely available in supermarkets and garden stores such as Bunnings, Coles and Woolworths.The baits have come under scrutiny because they have been found in dead native animals such as tawny frogmouths, powerful owls and quolls that had eaten poisoned rats and mice.The second-generation products are more toxic and are banned from public sale in the United States and parts of Canada and highly restricted in the European Union.Commercially available rat poisons have been found in dead native animals. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/The GuardianConsumers can identify SGARs in Australia by checking whether they contain one of the following active ingredients: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, difenacoum and flocoumafen. There are three FGAR active ingredients registered for use in Australia: warfarin, coumatetralyl and diphacinone.The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), in response to the review which was published Tuesday, has proposed a temporary suspension of SGARs while public consultation about the recommendations is under way. If the suspension goes ahead the APVMA said the affected products could still be used, but only in accordance with the proposed stricter conditions.“If suspended, the importation or manufacture of SGARs would be illegal. They could only be sold if they meet the new strict conditions around pack size and use,” a spokesperson said.Holly Parsons, of BirdLife Australia, said the review “doesn’t go far enough and crucially, fails to address secondary poisoning that is killing owls and birds of prey” such as when, for example, a native bird ate a poisoned rat.“Despite overwhelming evidence provided in support of the complete removal of SGARs from public sale, we’re yet to see proposed restrictions that come close to achieving this,” Parsons said.She said consumers should be able to “walk into stores under the assumption that the products available to them aren’t going to inadvertently kill native animals” but the APVMA has put “the responsibility on to the consumer with an expectation that labels are fully read and followed – and we know that won’t be the case”.The review also recommended cancelling the registration of anticoagulant rodenticides baits that come in powder and liquid form or which do not contain dyes or bittering agents, finding they do not meet safety criteria.But it found other baits sold as waxes, pellets and blocks could continue to be sold to consumers with some changes to labelling and conditions of use.Sign up: AU Breaking News emailThe APVMA found that under “current instructions” it could not be satisfied that these types of products would not have unintended, harmful effects on non-target animals, including native wildlife, nor that they would not pose undue safety risks to people who handled them including vulnerable people such as children.But it found the conditions of product registration and other “relevant particulars” could be varied in such a way as to allow the authority “to be satisfied that products will meet the safety criteria”.Some of the proposed new instructions would include limiting mice baits to indoor use only when in tamper-resistant bait stations; placing outdoor rat baits in tamper-proof stations within two metres of outside a building; changes to pack sizes; and tighter directions for the clean-up and disposal of carcasses and uneaten baits.The recommendations are subject to three months of public consultation before the authority makes a final decision.John White is an associate professor of wildlife and conservation biology at Deakin University. In 2023 he worked with a team of researchers that studied rat poison in dead tawny frogmouths and owls, who found 95% of frogmouths had rodenticides in their livers and 68% of frogmouths tested had liver rodenticide levels consistent with causing death or significant toxicological impacts.He said the authority’s proposed changes failed to properly tackle the problem that SGARS, from an environmental perspective, were “just too toxic”.White said even if the authority tightened the conditions of use and labelling rules there was no guarantee that consumers would follow new instructions. “We should be completely banning these things, not tinkering at the edges,” he said.A spokesperson for Woolworths said the supermarket would await the APVMA’s final recommendations “to inform a responsible approach to these products, together with the suppliers of them”.They said the chain stocked “a small range of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides for customers who might have a problem with rats or mice in their home, workplace, and especially in rural areas where it’s important for customers to have access to these products” while also selling “a number of alternative options”.Bunnings and Coles declined to comment.

Trail Cameras in Vermont Captured Something Strange: Moths Sipping a Moose's Tears

Tear-drinking, known as lachryphagy, has mostly been observed in the tropics, so scientists were somewhat surprised to find the unusual behavior so far north

Trail Cameras in Vermont Captured Something Strange: Moths Sipping a Moose’s Tears Tear-drinking, known as lachryphagy, has mostly been observed in the tropics, so scientists were somewhat surprised to find the unusual behavior so far north Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent December 16, 2025 8:49 a.m. A trail camera in Vermont captured 80 photos of moths fluttering around a moose's head, likely slurping up its tears. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department Laurence Clarfeld was sifting through images captured by a trail camera in Vermont when he came across a photo that stopped him in his tracks. Clarfeld, an environmental scientist at the University of Vermont, knew he was looking at a moose. But, beyond that, he was totally perplexed. “It almost looked like the moose had two [additional] eyes,” he tells Scientific American’s Gennaro Tomma. When he flipped through more photos in the sequence, Clarfeld finally understood what he was seeing: Moths were sipping tears straight from the ungulate’s eyes. Scientists have observed this unusual phenomenon, known as lachryphagy, among other types of animals. But, as far as anyone knows, the photos represent the first documented evidence of moths drinking moose tears. Clarfeld and his colleagues describe the encounter in a new paper published November 20 in the journal Ecosphere.  Moths seen drinking moose tears for first time ever The photos were captured in the early morning hours of June 19, 2024, in the Green Mountain National Forest, a large swath of protected woodlands in southern Vermont. Researchers had deployed them as part of an ongoing wildlife survey by the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. In total, the camera captured 80 snapshots of the moths fluttering around a moose’s head. The photos don’t specifically show the moths’ proboscises, the long, slender, straw-like mouthparts they use to suck nectar from flowers. But lachryphagy is the “most plausible explanation,” the researchers write in the paper. Roughly a year later, a colleague captured video footage that appeared to show the same thing—moths hovering around a moose’s eyes, per Scientific American. Scientists have previously observed moths, bees and butterflies feeding on the tears of other animals. They’ve documented solitary bees drinking the tears of yellow-spotted river turtles in Ecuador, stingless bees harvesting human tears in Thailand, erebid moths feasting on the tears of ringed kingfishers in Colombia and erebid moths slurping up the tears of sleeping black-chinned antbirds in Brazil. But most of these instances have occurred in subtropical and tropical regions. Only one known case of lachryphagy has been documented outside the tropics, according to the researchers: a moth eating the tears of a horse in Arkansas. At first, researcher Laurence Clarfeld didn't know what he was seeing when he spotted moths hovering around a moose's eyes. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department It may be that lachryphagy is simply more common in the tropics. But it’s also possible that “not a lot of scientists are looking in [other] places,” Akito Kawahara, an entomologist at the Florida Museum of Natural History who was not involved with the research, tells Scientific American. Why do moths and other insects feed on tears? It’s not entirely clear, but scientists suspect they may be seeking out certain essential nutrients, like sodium, during periods when those substances may be harder to find elsewhere. They may also be looking for protein boost. Insects typically get protein from plant nectar, but tears may be a handy backup. “Vertebrate fluids are the main alternative source for obtaining proteins,” Leandro Moraes, a biologist at the University of São Paulo who observed tear-feeding moths in Brazil, told National Geographic’s Sandrine Ceurstemont in 2018. Did you know? Resourceful insects Aside from tears, butterflies and moths have been known to take advantage of whatever resources are available, gathering up nutrient-rich liquids in and around soil, feces and carrion, including sweat and blood. Scientists call this feeding behavior “puddling.” Though lachryphagy appears to be relatively rare in nature, researchers still want to learn more about this unusual behavior. The tear drinker obviously benefits, but what about the tear supplier? For now, the relationship appears to be fairly one-sided—and might even be harmful to the host. In moose, for instance, eye-visiting moths could be transmitting pathogens that cause keratoconjunctivitis, which can lead to eye lesions and “significant health impacts,” the researchers write in the paper. For now, though, that’s just a hypothesis. Now that tear-drinking has been observed outside its typical range, the researchers are curious to know where else this behavior might be taking place, and among which other species. They’re encouraging wildlife scientists to keep an eye out because lachryphagy might ultimately be “more widespread than the lack of past records would suggest,” they write. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Costa Rica Shifts Toward Regenerative Tourism Alongside Other Nations

Costa Rica has long stood out for its commitment to protecting natural areas through tourism. Now, our country joins a growing number of nations that push beyond basic protection. They aim to restore and improve ecosystems damaged by past activities. This approach, called regenerative tourism, changes how visitors interact with places they travel to. In […] The post Costa Rica Shifts Toward Regenerative Tourism Alongside Other Nations appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Costa Rica has long stood out for its commitment to protecting natural areas through tourism. Now, our country joins a growing number of nations that push beyond basic protection. They aim to restore and improve ecosystems damaged by past activities. This approach, called regenerative tourism, changes how visitors interact with places they travel to. In Costa Rica, tourism generates over 8 percent of the national economy and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs. For decades, the focus stayed on sustainability—keeping beaches clean, forests intact, and wildlife safe without causing more harm. But recent efforts show a clear move to regeneration. Local projects work to rebuild habitats, boost biodiversity, and strengthen communities hit hard by environmental changes. Take Punta Leona, a coastal area in Puntarenas. Hotels there add a small fee to each booking, with funds going directly to conserve local plants and animals. This has helped protect scarlet macaws and other species facing threats from habitat loss. In the Arenal area, Rancho Margot operates as a self-sustaining farm and lodge. It grows its own food, recycles water, and teaches guests how to plant trees that restore soil eroded by old farming practices. These actions do more than maintain the status quo; they repair what was lost. Costa Rica’s government backs this trend. The Tourism Board promotes programs that encourage visitors to join conservation work, such as planting mangroves along the Pacific coast or monitoring sea turtles in Tortuguero. A group called Costa Rica Regenerativa advises businesses on how to integrate regeneration into their operations. They focus on holistic plans that cover social, cultural, and environmental needs. As a result, areas like Monteverde see improved cloud forest health, with reforestation efforts bringing back native species absent for years. This shift aligns with global patterns. New Zealand sets a strong example. Its tourism authority invites travelers to participate in restoring native forests and waterways. In places like Rotorua, canopy tours fund projects that remove invasive plants and protect geothermal sites. The country reports higher visitor satisfaction when people contribute to these efforts, leading to longer stays and more repeat trips. Saudi Arabia takes a different path but shares the goal. It invests in large-scale regeneration in desert regions, turning arid lands into green spaces through water management and planting programs. Tourism there now includes experiences where guests help with these restorations, drawing interest from eco-conscious travelers. Finland emphasizes carbon neutrality in its northern landscapes. Cities like Helsinki offer tours that involve cleaning up lakes and planting boreal forests. This not only offsets travel emissions but also enhances wildlife corridors for species like reindeer. Ecuador’s Galápagos Islands provide another case. Strict rules limit visitor numbers, but regenerative programs let people assist in removing invasive species and monitoring marine life. Revenue from these activities funds habitat restoration, helping giant tortoises and other endemic animals thrive. In Mexico, Playa Viva on the Pacific coast runs as a regenerative resort. It restores mangroves and coastal dunes while involving local communities in decision-making. Guests leave with a sense of having improved the place they visited. These examples show regenerative tourism spreading across continents. It responds to rising awareness of climate change and biodiversity loss. Travelers today seek meaningful trips that give back, and nations like Costa Rica benefit from this demand. Studies from the World Travel & Tourism Council indicate that regenerative practices can increase tourism revenue by up to 20 percent in participating areas, as they attract higher-spending visitors. Challenges remain. Mass tourism can strain resources, as seen in some Costa Rican beaches where overcrowding leads to pollution. To counter this, experts call for better regulations and education. Community involvement stays key—local people must lead these initiatives to ensure they meet real needs. Looking ahead, Costa Rica plans to expand regenerative models nationwide. Partnerships with international organizations aim to share knowledge with other countries. This positions the nation as a guide in the field, showing how tourism can heal rather than just preserve. As more nations adopt this model, the travel industry may see lasting change. For us here in Costa Rica, it means building a healthier future for our land and people. The post Costa Rica Shifts Toward Regenerative Tourism Alongside Other Nations appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

In Alaska’s Warming Arctic, Photos Show an Indigenous Elder Passing Down Hunting Traditions

An Inupiaq elder teaches his great-grandson to hunt in rapidly warming Northwest Alaska where thinning ice, shifting caribou migrations and severe storms are reshaping life

KOTZEBUE, Alaska (AP) — The low autumn light turned the tundra gold as James Schaeffer, 7, and his cousin Charles Gallahorn, 10, raced down a dirt path by the cemetery on the edge of town. Permafrost thaw had buckled the ground, tilting wooden cross grave markers sideways. The boys took turns smashing slabs of ice that had formed in puddles across the warped road.Their great-grandfather, Roswell Schaeffer, 78, trailed behind. What was a playground to the kids was, for Schaeffer – an Inupiaq elder and prolific hunter – a reminder of what warming temperatures had undone: the stable ice he once hunted seals on, the permafrost cellars that kept food frozen all summer, the salmon runs and caribou migrations that once defined the seasons.Now another pressure loomed. A 211-mile mining road that would cut through caribou and salmon habitat was approved by the Trump administration this fall, though the project still faces lawsuits and opposition from environmental and native groups. Schaeffer and other critics worry it could open the region to outside hunters and further devastate already declining herds. “If we lose our caribou – both from climate change and overhunting – we’ll never be the same,” he said. “We’re going to lose our culture totally.”Still, Schaeffer insists on taking the next generation out on the land, even when the animals don’t come. It was late September and he and James would normally have been at their camp hunting caribou. But the herd has been migrating later each year and still hadn’t arrived – a pattern scientists link to climate change, mostly caused by the burning of oil, gas and coal. So instead of caribou, they scanned the tundra for swans, ptarmigan and ducks.Caribou antlers are stacked outside Schaeffer's home. Traditional seal hooks and whale harpoons hang in his hunting shed. Inside, a photograph of him with a hunted beluga is mounted on the wall beside the head of a dall sheep and a traditional mask his daughter Aakatchaq made from caribou hide and lynx fur.He got his first caribou at 14 and began taking his own children out at 7. James made his first caribou kill this past spring with a .22 rifle. He teaches James what his father taught him: that power comes from giving food and a hunter’s responsibility is to feed the elders.“When you’re raised an Inupiaq, your whole being is to make sure the elders have food,” he said.But even as he passes down those lessons, Schaeffer worries there won’t be enough to sustain the next generation – or to sustain him. “The reason I’ve been a successful hunter is the firm belief that, when I become old, people will feed me,” he said. “My great-grandson and my grandson are my future for food.” That future feels tenuous These days, they’re eating less hunted food and relying more on farmed chicken and processed goods from the store. The caribou are fewer, the salmon scarcer, the storms more severe. Record rainfall battered Northwest Alaska this year, flooding Schaeffer’s backyard twice this fall alone. He worries about the toll on wildlife and whether his grandchildren will be able to live in Kotzebue as the changes accelerate.“It’s kind of scary to think about what’s going to happen,” he said.That afternoon, James ducked into the bed of Schaeffer’s truck and aimed into the water. He shot two ducks. Schaeffer helped him into waders – waterproof overalls – so they could collect them and bring them home for dinner, but the tide was too high. They had to turn back without collecting the ducks. The changes weigh on others, too. Schaeffer’s friend, writer and commercial fisherman Seth Kantner grew up along the Kobuk River, where caribou once reliably crossed by the hundreds of thousands. “I can hardly stand how lonely it feels without all the caribou that used to be here,” he said. “This road is the largest threat. But right beside it is climate change.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 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.