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 Deadly Pathogen Decimated Sunflower Sea Stars. Look Inside the Lab Working to Bring Them Back by Freezing and Thawing Their Larvae

For the first time, scientists have cryopreserved and revived the larvae of a sea star species. The breakthrough, made with the giant pink star, gives hope the technique could be repeated to save the imperiled predator

A Deadly Pathogen Decimated Sunflower Sea Stars. Look Inside the Lab Working to Bring Them Back by Freezing and Thawing Their Larvae For the first time, scientists have cryopreserved and revived the larvae of a sea star species. The breakthrough, made with the giant pink star, gives hope the technique could be repeated to save the imperiled predator Juvenile sunflower sea stars at the Sunflower Star Laboratory in Moss Landing, California. At this phase, each is less than an inch wide, but they can grow to be more than three feet across as adults. Avery Schuyler Nunn Key takeaways: Recovering sunflower sea stars by freezing them in time Ravaged by infectious bacteria, sunflower sea stars literally wasted away across the Pacific coast of North America—and their resulting population crash destabilized kelp forest ecosystems. Scientists pioneered a cryopreservation technique on the closely related giant pink star, raising hopes that a bank of frozen sunflower star larvae could one day be thawed in the same way and released into the wild. Along a working California harbor, where gulls wheel over weathered pilings and the old Western Flyer—the ship John Steinbeck once sailed to the Sea of Cortez—sits restored in its berth, researchers buzz about in a modest lab tucked between warehouses and boatyards. Inside, amid the hiss of pumps and the faint smell of brine from seawater tables, a scientist lifts a small vial from a plume of liquid nitrogen, its frosted casing holding the tiniest flicker of hope for a species on the brink. Each of the 18 vials contains between 500 and 700 larval giant pink sea stars. At this stage, they are tiny specks suspended in seawater, invisible to the naked eye. These particular larvae have been cryopreserved and stored at roughly minus 180 degrees Celsius since March. At the Sunflower Star Laboratory (SSL) in Moss Landing, California, scientists thawed the larval pink sea stars and coaxed them to successfully develop into juveniles this summer—a first for any sea star species. In October, the scientists thawed another batch of larvae from the same cohort to test larval growth and survival under different freezing conditions and thawing protocols. The breakthrough, however, isn’t really about the giant pink star, a species that’s common in the wild. Instead, these larvae serve as a crucial stand-in for the far more imperiled sunflower sea star (Pycnopodia helianthoides)—a vanishing species for which larvae are precious, limited and increasingly difficult to obtain. Perfecting cryopreservation methods on pink stars—ensuring they can survive freezing, resume feeding and grow into juveniles—lays the scientific groundwork for facilitating a return of Pycnopodia. The contents of a thawed vial are placed under a microscope to assess viability of the larvae. Avery Schuyler Nunn The discovery arrives at a precarious time, as sunflower stars have disappeared at a pace rarely seen in marine ecosystems. As a mysterious pathogen ravaged their population along the western shores of North America beginning in 2013, the creatures collapsed from an estimated six billion individuals to functional extinction in parts of their range—all within just a few years. Their loss left kelp forests with dramatically fewer predators, destabilizing ecosystems across the Pacific coast and allowing urchins to proliferate and graze formerly lush underwater canopies into barren rock. Now, scientists hope that “freezing” their larvae will offer a new avenue for bringing the species back. “Cryopreservation is particularly important on the population level when thinking about recovery for this endangered species, because it had major population losses,” says Marissa Baskett, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the project. The process lets scientists preserve the sea stars’ existing genetic diversity for future reintroduction to the wild, she adds. “Especially given the uncertainty about different disease outbreaks, having that stock to return to is incredibly valuable.” A mysterious and “complete collapse” Sunflower sea stars have long lived in abundance up and down the rugged Pacific coast—from Alaskan archipelagoes to Baja California. The 24-limbed echinoderms sprawled across the seafloor in shades of ochre, crimson and violet. Among the fastest-moving and largest of all sea stars—capable of stretching nearly three feet across—these radiant predators coursed through kelp forests, voraciously hunting purple sea urchins and preventing them from over-grazing on the holdfasts that root towering golden canopies of kelp. An adult sunflower sea star has 24 limbs and can be more than three feet wide. This one was photographed off Point Dume State Beach near Los Angeles. Brent Durand via Getty Images “In Northern California and Oregon, there historically would have been multiple keystone predators within the kelp forest ecosystem who are punching on purple urchins and keeping their population in check,” says Reuven Bank, board chair of SSL. “But the southern sea otter was extirpated across its historic range, so we were left with sunflower stars being the last major keystone predator of purple urchins across over 100 miles of coastline.” “And sunflower stars didn’t just eat urchins, they scared them,” Bank adds. “Urchins can smell a sunflower star approaching, and in healthy kelp forests they hide more and graze less. Even without consuming them, sunflower stars helped keep urchin behavior, and therefore kelp forests, in balance.” Then, in June 2013, tidepool monitors along Washington’s Olympic Peninsula documented an unprecedented sight. The once-sturdy sea stars had turned soft, pale and contorted, their arms curling and detaching from their bodies. By late summer, the same mysterious affliction had surfaced in British Columbia, and it began sweeping both north and south with startling speed. The emerging epidemic, which caused the invertebrates to literally disintegrate, would soon be known as sea star wasting disease. An infamous marine heatwave—nicknamed “The Blob”—had settled over the Pacific by 2014, thrusting the coast into a fever. Ocean temperatures spiked, likely speeding up the disease progression in already stressed sea stars and leading to higher mortality. In the warm, stagnant water, infected sunflower stars dissolved at an eerily rapid pace, leaving behind ghost-white films of bacterial mass where the vibrant predators had been just days before. “You’d have apparently healthy stars basically melt away into puddles of goo within 48 hours,” says Andrew Kim, lab manager at SSL. “It happened so quickly, and I don’t think folks were prepared for the ensuing ecosystem shift. You don’t often expect diseases to come through and totally reshape ecosystem dynamics within such a short period. But that’s what we saw.” Without sunflower sea stars to keep those spiny purple urchins in check, the balance began to falter, setting the stage for an unprecedented chain reaction. Urchin populations skyrocketed, grazing on kelp without limits, and once-thriving underwater forests collapsed into barren rock. A dense group of purple sea urchins, which exploded in population after the sunflower sea stars disappeared, photographed near Mendocino Headlands State Park, north of San Francisco. Brent Durand via Getty Images In California, with 99 percent loss, sunflower sea stars are now considered functionally extinct. “Even though there may be a few remnant individuals left, they can no longer fulfill their historic role in the ecosystem,” Bank says. As sunflower stars unraveled in the wild, another species—its thick-armed cousin, the giant pink star—offered an unexpected foothold for hope. The pink stars share a nearly identical geographic range and life history with sunflower stars, and crucially, their larvae can be raised in aquaria. If scientists could learn to freeze and revive the pink star in its early life stages, they wondered, could that knowledge become a lifeline for the sunflower star? That’s where the small team in Moss Landing stepped in. Freezing sea stars for the future What these scientists did was something no one had ever pulled off with a sea star. Working with giant pink stars, researchers spawned adults at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, California, fertilized their gametes to produce thousands of larvae, and shipped those microscopic bodies to the Frozen Zoo—a cryopreserved archive of creatures operated by the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance. There, reproductive scientists plunged the larvae into liquid nitrogen, cooling them to extremely low temperatures and pausing their cells’ biological activity. The larvae, essentially frozen in time, were shielded from ice crystal damage with special cryoprotectant mixtures. Sunflower Star Laboratory researchers remove a vial of pink star larvae from an insulated cooler at around minus 180 degrees Celsius in preparation for thawing. Avery Schuyler Nunn After months in this suspended state, the larvae were sent to the Sunflower Star Laboratory where Carly Young, a San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance scientist who advances cryopreservation and reproductive-rescue tools, led the team in thawing the vials. She had fine-tuned the ideal way to keep the larvae alive as they returned to real-world temperatures, carefully testing more than 100 “recipes” with various warming rates, cryoprotectant dilutions and rehydration steps. The pink star larvae not only survived thawing, but have thus far lived all the way through metamorphosis into juveniles. Scientists watched the little stars settle spontaneously along the bottom of their beakers just 19 days after revival. The success prompted the team to apply the same cryopreservation protocols to sunflower star larvae from the Alaska SeaLife Center. The larvae will be frozen in perpetuity, creating the first-ever cryopreserved archive of the species—like a seed bank, but for the baby sea stars. “A famous quote from the ’70s, when the Frozen Zoo in San Diego was established, was, ‘You must collect things for reasons you don’t yet understand,’” says Ashley Kidd, conservation project manager at SSL. “We don’t know when the other shoe is going to drop and what populations are going to look like as the planet changes. So, rather than chasing ghosts around the ocean floor, we really focused on what we can do with animals that are currently under human care somewhere.” While cryopreservation itself isn’t a ready-made restoration tool, it opens the door to conserving genetic diversity of a species and banking rare lineages for potential reintroduction to the wild. In the 1970s and 1990s, researchers began testing cryopreservation of marine invertebrates with sperm and larvae, establishing the basic protocols that this team could apply to sea stars. The breakthrough doesn’t restore kelp forests by itself, but the SSL scientists note that cryopreservation creates something the conservation community has desperately needed: time. Time to hold onto genetic diversity, time to refine captive rearing and time to prepare for future reintroduction at scales big enough to matter. The ultimate test, the researchers say, will be translating the thawing process to sunflower sea stars. Carly Young, at the Sunflower Star Laboratory, looks for movement in the young sea stars. Avery Schuyler Nunn Just this summer, scientists uncovered a piece of the puzzle that had eluded them for more than a decade: the pathogen behind sea star wasting disease. In a four-year international effort, researchers traced the outbreak to a strain of the marine bacterium Vibrio pectenicida. When cultured and injected into healthy sea stars, it reproduced the telltale symptoms—softening arms, rapid disintegration and death within days. The finding, published in Nature Ecology and Evolution in August, gives recovery teams a way to test for the pathogen in labs and hatcheries, tighten quarantine measures and understand disease risks before returning captive-bred sea stars to the Pacific. “It’s massively important to know what to look for, and the fact that we are now able to test for this disease is going to be critical in advancing our ability to move forward with reintroductions and continuing the research,” notes Kim. “We’ve already been able to take fluid samples from all of our stars and get them analyzed for the presence of Vibrio pectenicida, so we’ve mobilized very quickly on the heels of development.” Paired with this new diagnostic clarity, advances in cryopreservation offer a second front in the effort to save the species. Frozen larvae can be stored for decades and offer flexibility for selective breeding of disease-tolerant traits, notes the team. Cryopreservation adds another tool to the scientists’ toolbox as they fight to prevent the species—and, in turn, its ecosystem—from wasting away. “Bringing back sunflower stars,” Bank says, “is the single-most important step we can take toward restoring kelp forest balance.” Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Archaeologists Are Unraveling the Mysteries Behind Deep Pits Found Near Stonehenge

Based on a comprehensive study, researchers are now convinced the shafts were human-made, likely dug during the Late Neolithic period roughly 4,000 years ago

Archaeologists Are Unraveling the Mysteries Behind Deep Pits Found Near Stonehenge Based on a comprehensive study, researchers are now convinced the shafts were human-made, likely dug during the Late Neolithic period roughly 4,000 years ago Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent December 10, 2025 9:59 a.m. The pits are evenly spaced around a large circle. University of Bradford In 2020, archaeologists in the United Kingdom made a surprising discovery. At Durrington Walls, a large Neolithic henge not far from Stonehenge, they found more than a dozen large, deep pits buried under layers of loose clay. The pits are mysterious. Each one measures roughly 30 feet wide by 15 feet deep, and together they form a mile-wide circle around Durrington Walls and neighboring Woodhenge. They also appear to be linked with the much older Larkhill causewayed enclosure, built more than 1,000 years before Durrington Walls. For the last few years, archaeologists have been puzzling over their origins: Were they dug intentionally by human hands? Were they naturally occurring structures, like sinkholes? Or is there some other possible explanation for the existence of these colossal shafts? Quick fact: The purpose of Durrington Walls While Stonehenge is thought to have been a sacred place for ceremonies, Durrington Walls was a place where people actually lived. In a new paper published in the journal Internet Archaeology, archaeologists report that they have a much better understanding of the pits’ purpose, chronology and environmental setting. And, now, they are confident the shafts were made by humans. “They can’t be occurring naturally,” says lead author Vincent Gaffney, an archaeologist at the University of Bradford, to the Guardian’s Steven Morris. “It just can’t happen. We think we’ve nailed it.” Chris Gaffney, an archaeologist at the at the University of Bradford, surveys the ground near Durrington Walls. University of Bradford For the study, researchers returned to the site in southern England and used several different methods to further analyze the unusual structures. They used a technique known as electrical resistance tomography to calculate the pits’ depths, and radar and magnetometry to suss out their shapes. They also took core samples of the sediment, then ran the soil through a variety of tests. For instance, they used optically stimulated luminescence to determine the last time each layer of soil had been exposed to the sun. They also looked for traces of animal or plant DNA. Astonishing' Stonehenge discovery offers new insights into Neolithic ancestors. Together, the results of these analyses indicate humans must have been involved, which suggests the pits could be “one of the largest prehistoric structures in Britain, if not the largest,” Gaffney tells the BBC’s Sophie Parker. Researchers suspect the circle pits were created by people living at the site over a short period of time during the Late Neolithic period roughly 4,000 years ago. They were not “simply dug and abandoned” but, rather, appear to have been part of a “structured, monumental landscape that speaks to the complexity and sophistication of Neolithic society,” Gaffney says in a statement. For example, the pits are fairly evenly spaced around the circle, which suggests their Neolithic creators were measuring the distances between them somehow. “The skill and effort that must have been required to not only dig the pits, but also to place them so precisely within the landscape is a marvel,” says study co-author Richard Bates, a geophysicist at the University of St Andrews, in a statement. “When you consider that the pits are spread over such a large distance, the fact they are located in a near perfect circular pattern is quite remarkable.” Researchers used multiple methods to investigate the pits at Durrington Walls. University of Bradford But who dug the pits? And, perhaps more importantly, why? Archaeologists are still trying to definitively answer those questions, but they suspect the shafts were created to serve as some sort of sacred boundary around Durrington Walls. Their creators may also have been trying to connect with the underworld, per the Guardian. “They’re inscribing something about their cosmology, their belief systems, into the earth itself in a very dramatic way,” Gaddney tells the BBC. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Is red meat bad for you? Limited research robs us of a clear answer.

We’d all appreciate more definitive guidance. Eating a varied diet is a wise move while we wait.

Over and over, we ask the question: Is Food X good or bad for you? And, over and over, belief in the answer — whether it’s yes or no — is held with conviction totally out of proportion with the strength of the evidence.Today’s illustration: red meat. It has become one of the most-disputed issues in food. It’s so polarizing that some people decide to eat no meat at all, while others decide to eat only meat. It’s poison, or it’s the only true fuel.The latest salvo in the Meat Wars was kicked off by a new report that outlines the optimal diet for both people and planet. The EAT-Lancet Report comes down hard on red meat; its recommended daily intake is a mere 14 grams — that’s half an ounce.Read on, and the news gets worse: “Because intake of red meat is not essential and appears to be linearly related to higher total mortality and risks of other health outcomes in populations that have consumed it for many years, the optimal intake may be zero.”Note that word: “related.” It’s the source of the problem with the report and its recommendation.The EAT-Lancet report, by researchers from 17 countries, bases its recommendation solely on observational data. When you do that, meat comes out looking pretty bad. In study after study, people who report eating a lot of meat have worse health outcomes than people who eat little. Meat-eating correlates with increased risk of heart disease, some cancers and all-cause mortality.But, as always with observational research that attempts to connect the dots between diet and health, the key question is whether the meat itself, or something else associated with a meat-heavy lifestyle, is actually causing the bad outcomes.That’s a hard question to answer, but there are clues that people who eat a lot of meat are very different from people who eat a little.Let’s look at a study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, cited by the EAT-Lancet report; it has a convenient demographic summary. According to it, people in the top one-fifth of meat eaters are different from people in the bottom fifth in a lot of important ways: They weigh more, they’re more likely to smoke, they’re not as well-educated, they get less exercise, and they report lower intakes of fruit, vegetables and fiber. On the plus side, they report drinking less alcohol. But other than that, we’re looking at a litany of markers for a lifestyle that’s not particularly health-conscious.So, to suss out whether it’s the meat that’s raising disease risk, you have to somehow correct for any of the differences on that list — and most of that information also comes from observational research, so even the confounders are confounded.Then there are the things you can’t correct for. Sleep quality, depression and screen time, for example, all correlate with some of the same diseases meat correlates with, but most studies have no information on those.All this confounding explains one of my all-time favorite findings from observational research. It comes from the same study the demographics came from (analyzed in a 2015 paper). Sure enough, the people who ate the most meat were more likely to die of cancer and heart disease, but they were also more likely to die in accidents. And the biggest difference came from the catchall category “all others,” which invariably includes causes of death that have nothing to do with meat.Basically, there’s a very simple problem with relying on observational research: People who eat a lot of meat are very different from people who eat less of it. The meat definitely isn’t causing the accidental deaths (unless, perhaps, they’re tragic backyard grill mishaps), and it isn’t causing at least some of the “all others” deaths, so we know that heavy and light meat-eaters are different in all kinds of ways.That’s where controlled trials come in.In a perfect world, we could figure this out by keeping a large group of people captive for a lifetime, feeding half of them meat, and seeing what happens. Okay, maybe that’s not a perfect world, but it would be the best solution to this particular problem.Instead, we have trials that are short-term (because of logistics and cost), and necessarily rely on markers for disease, rather than the disease itself. For that to be useful, you need a marker that’s a reliable indicator. For a lot of diseases — including cancer — those are hard to come by. For heart disease, we have a good one: low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. So, most of the controlled trials of meat-eating focus on heart disease.If you spend some time reading those trials (and I did, so you don’t have to), you find that most of them show some increase in LDL cholesterol, although it’s generally small.A 2025 analysis of 44 controlled trials on meat found that the only ones showing positive cardiovascular outcomes had links to the meat industry, and even then, only about one in five came out positive. Of the independent studies, about three-quarters showed negative outcomes, and the remaining one-quarter was neutral.This isn’t surprising. Red meat contains saturated fat, and we have countless trials that demonstrate sat fat’s ability to raise LDL. But if the meat you eat is relatively lean, that effect is going to be small.The lesson here is that we don’t have a lot of good evidence on meat and health. The observational evidence is hopelessly confounded, and the evidence from clinical trials is woefully limited. There’s so much we simply don’t know. There may be other ways meat raises risk (leading to over-absorption of heme iron and stimulating the production of TMAO, or trimethylamine N-oxide), but there’s little definitive evidence for them. And, of course, there’s the question of what you eat instead. If you’re eating red meat instead of, say, instant ramen, that may be an improvement. If, instead, you’re cutting back on your lentils, not so much.As always, the single-most important thing to remember about nutrition is that what we know is absolutely dwarfed by what we don’t know. Which means that, if you’re making decisions based on what we do know, you could very well be wrong.So what’s an eater to do? Meat is a nutritious food. In fact, animal foods are the only natural sources of a vitamin we need — B12 — which is an indication that we evolved with meat and dairy as part of our diet. It’s very hard to know whether eating some lean meat leads to better outcomes than eating no meat, but I think some meat is a good hedge against all that uncertainty. (The ethical and environmental concerns are also important, but for today let’s focus on health.)But plant foods are also nutritious. And eating a wide variety of them is also a good hedge against uncertainty. Which means the carnivore diet — all meat, all the time! — is a pretty bad bet.Unfortunately, “uncertainty” is not a word that features prominently in the Meat Wars. Instead, we have an unappetizing combination of nastiness and sanctimony, with each camp convinced that the truth and the light are on their side.Not that this is a metaphor for our times or anything.

New Wildlife Books for Children and Teens (That Adults May Find Interesting Too)

These books for young readers will delight and encourage interest in mammals, insects, octopuses, and other creatures in our shared environment. The post New Wildlife Books for Children and Teens (That Adults May Find Interesting Too) appeared first on The Revelator.

Creating excitement about our amazing planet in young people has never been more important. A pack of new books make environmental science fun and fascinating, teaching children, teens, and even some adults just how diverse and rich our planet’s wildlife and their habitats are to behold. Reading them can encourage us all to become better guardians of the Earth. We’ve adapted the books’ official descriptions below and provided links to the publishers’ sites, but you should also be able to find these books in a variety of formats through your local bookstore or library. Insectopolis By Peter Kuper Award-winning cartoonist Peter Kuper transports readers through the 400-million-year history of insects and the remarkable entomologists who have studied them. This visually immersive work of graphic non-fiction dives into a world where ants, cicadas, bees, and butterflies visit a library exhibition that displays their stories and humanity’s connection to them throughout the ages. Layering history and science, color and design, it tells the remarkable tales of dung beetles navigating by the stars, hawk-size prehistoric dragonflies hunting prey, and mosquitoes changing the course of human history. Read our interview with Kuper. They Work: Honey Bees, Nature’s Pollinators By June Smalls and illustrator Yukari Mishima The newest addition to June Smalls’s nature series, this is a gorgeous nonfiction picture book about life for a hive of honeybees, complete with factoids. Readers learn about the beehive queen, who fights to be queen from the moment she breaks out of her cell. Her job is important, but a hive is only successful if many, many bees are working together. Experience the life cycle of the honeybee up close and personal with this striking picture book. Told in a poetic style along with fun facts on each page for older readers wanting a deeper dive, this book is a beautiful exploration of life inside a beehive — as well as the dangers and predators bees face in the world, including humans. Bison: Community Builders and Grassland Caretakers By Frances Backhouse Bison are North America’s largest land animals. Some 170,000 wood bison once roamed northern regions, while at least 30 million plains bison trekked across the rest of the continent. Almost driven to extinction in the 1800s by decades of slaughter and hunting, this ecological and cultural species supports biodiversity and strengthens the ecosystems around it. This book celebrates the traditions and teachings of Indigenous peoples and looks at how bison lovers of all backgrounds came together to save these iconic animals. Learn about the places where bison are regaining a hoof-hold and meet some of the young people welcoming them back home. Many Things Under a Rock: The Mysteries of Octopuses by David Scheel and Laurel ‘Yoyo’ Scheel This compelling middle-grade adaptation dives deep into the mysteries of one of our planet’s most enigmatic animals. Among all the ocean’s creatures, few are more captivating — or more elusive — than the octopus. Marine biologist David Scheel investigates these strange beings to answer long-held questions: How can we learn more about animals whose perfect camouflage and secretive habitats make them invisible to detection? How does an almost-boneless package of muscle and protein defeat sharks, eels, and other predators while also preying on the most heavily armored animals in the sea? How do octopuses’ bodies work? This fascinating book shows young readers how to embrace the wisdom of the unknown — even if it has more arms than expected. Animal Partnerships: Radical Relationships, Unlikely Alliances, and Other Animal Teams By Ben Hoare and Asia Orlando Discover partnerships from across the animal kingdom with unexpected animal teams around the world who thrive in the wild as they defend, feed, and plot with each other to survive. Friendly, informative explanations are paired with striking photographs and colorful illustrations to make every page captivate the imagination. This unique animal book for children offers impressive facts about previously unknown animal behaviors that are guaranteed to wow adults and children alike. Conker and the Monkey Trap By Hannah Peckham Deep in the jungle, a chameleon named Conker finds two animals in need of his help. Though he first wants to run and hide, he remembers what his mom taught him about being kind and helpful to others. Once Conker saves Sanjeet the lost lorikeet from a puddle, the two of them come across a monkey caught in a trap. Conker and his new friend work together to save the day. This sweet rhyming story will teach young readers the value of friendship and helping those in need. There are plenty of points for discussion and those are aided by the probing questions at the back of the book and the various activities. Mollusks By Kaitlyn Salvatore From the Discover More: Marine Wildlife Series. Not all marine wildlife lives completely underwater. While some mollusks do, other species live both above and below the water’s surface. As readers learn about the different classes of mollusks, they uncover how a mollusk’s body allows it to do amazing things, learning about the unique ways different mollusk species, from slugs to squid to clams, contribute to their environments. Their lifestyles, diet, and the threats to their survival come to life through vivid photographs and age-appropriate text. Becoming an Ecologist: Career Pathways in Science By John A. Wiens What influences a person’s decision to pursue a career in science? And what factors determine the many possible pathways a budding scientist chooses to follow? John A. Wiens traces his journeys through several subfields of ecology — and gives readers an inside look at how science works. He shares stories from his development as an ornithologist, community ecologist, landscape ecologist, and conservation scientist, recounting the serendipities, discoveries, and joys of this branching career. Wiens explores how an individual’s background and interests, life’s contingencies, the influences of key people, and the culture of a discipline can all shape a scientist’s trajectory. This book explores why ecologists ask the questions they do, how they go about answering them, and what they do when the answers are not what they expected. Bringing together personal narrative with practical guidance for aspiring ecologists, this book provides a window onto a dynamic scientific field — and inspiration for all readers interested in building a career by following their passion for the natural world, presented in an enticing way for young professionals and students. Enjoy these engaging reads and get young friends and family members involved with activities that support our environment and wildlife. We hope you and your children and grandchildren will be motivated to protect and reclaim our environment through these remarkable books. And there’s more to come: We’ll cover more books for young readers in the months ahead. For hundreds of additional environmental books — including many for kids of all ages — visit the Revelator Reads archives. The post New Wildlife Books for Children and Teens (That Adults May Find Interesting Too) appeared first on The Revelator.

Sea lions keep eating the salmon in the Columbia River. Some lawmakers want to kill more of them

A committee of the U.S. House of Representatives spent more than two hours debating the Pacific Northwest’s sea lion problem.

Pacific Northwest sea lions got the spotlight in a Congressional hearing last week.The U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Natural Resources spent nearly two and a half hours Wednesday debating the long-standing issue of the Columbia River sea lions, who are known to feast on the salmon that swim down and upriver. It wasn’t great news for the sea lions, as the debate centered primarily around how best to kill the pinnipeds. The hearing featured testimony from Aja DeCoteau, executive director of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fishing Commission, who urged the committee to expand efforts to remove the animals and research the problem, The Columbian reported. “Historically, our elders remember an occasional sea lion reaching Celilo Falls,” DeCoteau said at the hearing. “However, these occurrences were rare. Now, a combination of hydro-system infrastructure, changing environmental conditions and the success of the Marine Mammal Protection Act has resulted in unprecedented numbers of sea lions in the Columbia River.”For years, state wildlife managers have sought ways to keep sea lions from gobbling up salmon. Exclusion gates have been installed at the entrances to fish ladders. Sea lions have been hazed with underwater explosives and firecracker shells fired from shotguns. Agencies have tried using fake orcas and arm-flailing inflatables. Animals that have been trapped and relocated, driven hundreds of miles and released into the ocean, have returned upriver within days.In 2008, Oregon was given permission to kill some of the sea lions, though officials were required to capture and brand individual animals, and catch them in the act of consuming salmon, before they could euthanize. The frustrated efforts led to a 2020 federal law that permitted Oregon, Washington and Idaho, as well as some tribes, to bypass the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act, allowing them to trap and kill up to 540 California sea lions and 176 Steller sea lions from the Columbia River and its tributaries. In the five years since, only 230 total sea lions have been killed.While the 2020 federal permit to kill the sea lions was renewed without controversy this September, extending the law through 2030, lawmakers are now examining how effective the legislative efforts have actually been. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat who represents Washington’s 3rd Congressional District, which runs along the lower Columbia River, sat in on the Congressional committee Wednesday, asking why more sea lions haven’t been killed.“Ask yourself, why are these numbers so small?” she said. Gluesenkamp Perez argued the removal process is arduous and expensive, estimating the cost of removing one sea lion at $38,000, or roughly $203 per salmon saved.She recommended expanding the reach of the permits and suggested a process that would allow local fisherman and tribal members to bid on permits to assist with sea lion killings. “I have seen and heard firsthand how much work goes into managing sea lion populations and preserving local fisheries,” she added. “As the name implies, sea lions are a species that belong in the sea, not in our rivers.” Larry Phillips, policy director for the American Sportfishing Association, who also testified before the committee Wednesday, said he thought people would “line up” to participate in sea lion removals.“I also think that we need to be really careful, make sure we’re investing in good science to monitor the outcomes of any type of programs that we implement or decide to implement, and that’s that clearly is going to be the foundation of how we move forward,” Phillips said. “But you know, I would certainly support being creative and coming up with unique ideas.” Killing sea lions in the Pacific Northwest has long been a contentious issue. A 2023 video of a fishing boat repeatedly charging large groups of sea lions demonstrated the animosity many fishers feel toward sea lions, though it shocked even fellow anglers, who condemned the act of aggression toward the animals.

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.