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

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

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

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

Pills that communicate from the stomach could improve medication adherence

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

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

Costa Rica Rescues Orphaned Manatee Calf in Tortuguero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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