News Feeds

What's on and in a star? What happens at an active galactic nucleus? Answering those question is the goal of a proposed giant interferometer on the Moon. It's called Artemis-enabled Stellar Imager (AeSI) and would deploy a series of 15-30 optical/ultraviolet-sensitive telescopes in a 1-km elliptical array across the lunar surface.

In the years since Miguel Alcubierre came up with a warp drive solution in 1994, you would occasionally see news headlines saying that warp drives can work. And then a few months later you’ll see that they’ve been ruled out. And then after that you’ll see that warp drives kind of work, but only in limited cases. It seems to constantly go around and around without a clear answer. What gives?

There is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. There is also a lot of other stuff there as well. Young stars, gas, dust, and stellar-mass black holes. It's a happening place. It is also surrounded by a veil of interstellar gas and dust, which means we can't observe the region in visible light. We can observe stars in the region through infrared and radio, and some of the gas there emits radio light, but the stellar-mass black holes remain mostly a mystery.

The latest comedy-and-news segment of Bill Maher’s “Real Time” show is about the bloated defense budget, asking why Trump doesn’t cut the fat from the military (apparently they cut $580 million).  Even Musk has asked that question, referring to the stratospheric price of fighter jets, now largely obsolete in the age of drones.

Maher points out how much larger our defense budget is than that of any other country, including China and Russia, and even the U.S. military says it has  19% more bases than it needs.

Why? It’s the military-industrial complex, Jake!

This is a pretty good one. It’s funny but makes several serious points.

Well, I don’t mean the entire journal Nature, but one strongly-written op-ed (Nature 639, 548), though I have absolutely no doubt that Nature adheres to its view. And the view of the author, bioethicist Arthur Caplan, is that despite Trump’s threats to withhold federal money from universities that maintain DEI programs, we have to push back hard on this initiative, for DEI is simply wonderful: a boon to science and society.  All of that, of course, is debatable, and, sadly, Caplan makes a number of assertions about DEI without a single reference to support them.

Click below to read his short piece (I hope you can see it):

Caplan strives to be clever by beginning with the hypothesis that had social media and grants been around in the days of Galileo, he would have been censored and lost government money. I laughed so loud! (Not!) At any rate, here’s Caplan’s view of what we must do with DEI, which he never defines:

More scholars must push back. The idea that scientists can keep doing what they know must be done to incorporate DEI into their work while adjusting terms to fit the demands of bigoted autocrats bent on hobbling science is to whistle loudly past a graveyard of avoidable error, continued financial cuts and censorship. That diversity matters to science is a truth — albeit one that has only recently begun to be accepted and applied.

But the “DEI” that many universities use, and which many of us object to, is much more than the statement, “All people, regardless of identity, religion, sex, able-ness, and so on, will be treated equally.” Who could object to that?

No, the DEI that Trump is trying to weed out is the ideological form of DEI. It is the assumption that there are different truths for different groups that are more or less equal; that adjudicating these truths is done by seeing which groups are more powerful; that there is a certain “progressive” ideology around sex and gender; that society (and science) is to be framed as a battle between the oppressor and the oppressed; and that “equity”–the representation of identity groups in proportion to their occurrence in society–is a goal we all must strive for, because inequities surely reflect ongoing bigotry.

Yet Caplan conceives of “DEI” in other ways, some of them bing okay. Here are two:

First, clinical and social-science research requires diversity to be valid. Genomics has established that different groups of people respond differently to drugs and vaccines. The individuals recruited to and participating in clinical trials must be representative of those who will use those treatments in real life. Attention to DEI allows researchers to identify differences in safety and efficacy between groups early on in the testing process.

Likewise, social scientists are well aware that understanding behaviour and implementing desired change requires studying populations besides white, Western, university psychology students — the group from which psychologists have mainly sourced participants for decades. This is the case whether researchers seek to overcome vaccine hesitancy, prevent self-harm, improve reading skills, change recycling habits or prevent obesity.

And I’m prepared to believe this one, though again no references are given, as it makes some sense and there are arguments that support it (one here). But the evidence seems thin:

 . . . .  diversity in the scientific workforce brings a multitude of ideas, approaches, perspectives and values to the table. Thinking outside the box matters in tackling all manner of problems in artificial intelligence, engineering, mathematics, economics and astrophysics. Diverse minds can find connections and patterns, provide perspectives and draw conclusions that might not occur to a group of less-inclusive researchers.

To me, the above aren’t problematic, but we all know that the “D” in “DEI” refers to race or sex, not viewpoint or studying different groups in anthropology. And then Caplan treats on more problematic ground:

Second, research has shown again and again that DEI matters when it comes to providing health care. A diverse and representative health-care workforce improves people’s satisfaction with the care that they receive and health outcomes, especially for individuals of colour. When Black people are treated by Black doctors, they are more likely to receive the preventive care that they need and more likely to agree to recommended interventions, such as blood tests and flu shots.

There are no references given here, and I’d like to see them. Remember the widely-publicized report that black newborns have higher mortality when treated by white doctors than black ones? It was attributed to racism, but later discovered that the effect was entirely due to white doctors having to deal with infants of the lowest birth weights, and hence having higher mortalities (see here and here).  People are simply too quick to impute all disparities to racism, and this is another of the big weaknesses of DEI.

Finally, there are two other contestable reasons why Caplan sees DEI as admirable:

Second, research has shown again and again that DEI matters when it comes to providing health care. A diverse and representative health-care workforce improves people’s satisfaction with the care that they receive and health outcomes, especially for individuals of colour. When Black people are treated by Black doctors, they are more likely to receive the preventive care that they need and more likely to agree to recommended interventions, such as blood tests and flu shots.

A DEI-oriented workforce improves learning and outcomes for all. Many veterans seeking mental-health care or rehabilitation after trauma specifically request a psychologist who is a veteran. Attention to DEI helps to ensure that health-care providers’ opportunities to learn are not missed, and that problems facing rural communities, minority ethnic groups and those with rare diseases are not neglected.

Again, I’d like to see the references. Maybe there is some literature out that that I just don’t know about.  But I will say this: satisfaction with health care is one thing, but health outcomes are another. Does DEI improve healthcare, degrade it because it erodes merit, or have no effect? But really, these two scenarios have little to do with DEI save that people like to be treated by people who look like them. That’s a form of tribalism, and isn’t so bad; but the ultimate arbiter of DEI here is whether choosing doctors or psychologists by identity rather than merit gives better outcomes than prioritizing (or at least giving heavy weight) to identity. After all, there are plenty of psychologists who are already veterans, so is there a need to prioritize “veteran status” when admitting someone to training as a psychologist?

In the end, Caplan goes back to DEI as it is actually used in universities: the version that derives from postmodernism with all the new trimmings. He bawls that we have to support it, implying that now that Trump is in power, it’s especially important to defend DEI:

Scientists, their funders and their professional societies must follow in Galileo’s perhaps apocryphal footsteps and speak up about DEI’s crucial role in science. They must urge patient-advocacy organizations, environmentalists and other citizen groups to declare that they don’t want their or their children’s health and well-being jeopardized by the bad science that a lack of attention to DEI will produce. They must emphasize DEI in their publications whenever the denial of its relevance to a scientific issue is demanded by political inquisitors.

These are dangerous times. Scientists globally must stand together for sound science and resist bigotry, bias and hate. If science is to honour one of its core values — a commitment to the truth wherever it might lead — scientists must stand up when DEI matters. Galileo’s story should remind us all: the only way forward is speaking truth to power.

Back to Galileo again!  I stand for good science and against bigotry, bias, and unwarranted hate. But when does DEI matter? Show me some cases and some data, and I’ll decide whether or not to stand up. To me, the only kind of DEI I now support at the university level is the principle that “all people must be treated equally despite their immutable identities.”

Welcome back to our five-part examination of Webb's Cycle 4 General Observations program. In the first and second installments, we examined how some of Webb's 8,500 hours of prime observing time this cycle will be dedicated to exoplanet characterization, the study of galaxies at "Cosmic Dawn," the period known as "Cosmic Noon," and the study of star formation and evolution. In our final installment, we'll examine programs that leverage Webb's unique abilities to study objects in our cosmic backyard—the Solar System!

Two days ago I was perusing the website of the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), which, along with the American Society of Naturalists (ASN) and the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB), wrote a statement to President Trump and Congress in early February asserting that sex forms a “continuum” in all species (see our rebuttal here).  Although the SSE’s statement is both biologically wrong and embarrassing, published just to conform to gender-activist ideology, it remains online (archived here), though the three Presidents who signed it haven’t yet seen fit to send it to the recipients, nor will they give us permission to post their response to our critique—a response sent to 125 signers of our letter.

That’s just for background.  While it’s within the ambit of the SSE, ASN, and SSB to try correcting governmental misstatements about science, in this case the government’s executive order on biological sex gave the correct definition (and a note that it’s binary), while the statement of the three societies was flatly wrong.  It’s not okay to distort biology in the name of politics.  People will perceive this as a sign that the SSE is becoming “progressive” or “woke”, and that leads, as we know, to public mistrust of science and scientists.

But on Friday I found another sign that the SSE is getting politicized, and it’s a more blatant statement. This statement (below) shows that the SSE has been fully ideologically captured and has no truck with Republicans.  That is fine for individuals, but when an entire scientific society tells us that Republicans—in this case Elon Musk—are unethical, that’s not good for the society, for its members, or for science in general.

Scientific organizations and journals should not take ideological sides (save when science itself is at issue), as we know from when the journal Nature broke precedent in 2024 and endorsed Biden for President in 2020. A paper on the outcome was published in Nature Human Behavior, of all places, and the results don’t speak well for journals taking sides. Here’s its abstract (bolding is mine):

High-profile political endorsements by scientific publications have become common in recent years, raising concerns about backlash against the endorsing organizations and scientific expertise. In a preregistered large-sample controlled experiment, I randomly assigned participants to receive information about the endorsement of Joe Biden by the scientific journal Nature during the COVID-19 pandemic. The endorsement message caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters. This distrust lowered the demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature, as evidenced by substantially reduced requests for Nature articles on vaccine efficacy when offered. The endorsement also reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general. The estimated effects on Biden supporters’ trust in Nature and scientists were positive, small and mostly statistically insignificant. I found little evidence that the endorsement changed views about Biden and Trump. These results suggest that political endorsement by scientific journals can undermine and polarize public confidence in the endorsing journals and the scientific community.

That implies that journals and scientific societies should just shut up about ideological, moral, or political issues save when the issues deal with the mission of the organization. (This is the same kind of “ideological neutrality” adopted by several dozen universities, including mine.)

But the SSE can’t help itself. It galls me that a Society of which I was once President has become the Teen Vogue of evolutionary biology.  Now I don’t like Elon Musk’s political behavior, for he’s breaking our government like a bull in a china shop (his work as an “engineering leader,” however, is admirable).  But Twitter has its uses, and I remain on it, calling attention to all my pieces here.  And when I post there I don’t feel that I’m telling people, “I love Elon Musk!”

But the SSE can’t survive without going after Musk, and so they’ve announced their withdrawal from Twitter, which you can see here. I reproduce their announcement below (indented):

SSE on Social Media

Contributed by kjm34 on Mar 14, 2025 – 04:33 PM

SSE Council recently voted to cease activity on the SSE account (@sse_evolution) on X/Twitter after April 15. This motion was raised due to the platform’s ethical misalignment with SSE’s mission and vision, particularly around equity, inclusiveness, and responsible communication of science. We encourage our members to follow us on other social media platforms in order to stay up to date with the latest SSE news.

Find SSE on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Facebook. 

Announcements are also sent to all SSE members via email in our monthly newsletter. Make sure your email address is up to date by logging in here.

The Evolution and Evolution Letters journals will also stop posting to Twitter – follow Evolution on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Facebook and Evolution Letters on Bluesky and Mastodon.

You can still find the SSE Graduate Student Advisory Committee (GSAC) on Bluesky and Twitter, and Evolution Meetings on Bluesky and Twitter.

Why did they do this? It’s no mystery: the Society is announcing its dislike of Elon Musk, who owns “X” (Twitter). And because the SSE sees Twitter as being in “ethical misalignment with SSE’s mission and vision, particularly around equity, inclusiveness, and responsible communication of science,” they must sever most ties with that social-media platform. (Note that they don’t explain this “ethical misalignment”, but I guess it consists of simply this: “We don’t like Elon Musk and won’t post on his site.)

Except that they still do keep ties with the site!  As you see above, the SSE will continue to post announcements from the Grad Student Advisory Committee and announcements about the annual SSE meetings on Twitter. What is that about? If it’s unethical for the SSE to align with Twitter, then it must be unethical for its grad students, too, and especially unethical to use Musk’s site to harbor stuff about the annual meeting.

What about those other two societies? Well, I guess they haven’t yet gotten the message that their posting on Twitter constitutes unethical behavior. The American Society of Naturalists remains on Twitter (“X”), as does The Society of Systematic Biologists. Nor can I find any announcement of misalignment at the ASN’s own site or the SSB’s own site.

It mystifies me how among these three societies, which are closely aligned, only one has quit Twitter because it sees posting there as unethical. Come on, ASN and SSB, get on the progressive bandwagon!

Today we have another installment of John Avise‘s alphabetized list of photos of North American butterflies. John’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

Butterflies in North America, Part 15  

This week continues my many-part series on butterflies that I’ve photographed in North America.  I’m continuing to go down my list of species in alphabetical order by common name.

Reakirt’s Blue (Echinargus isola), female:

Red Admiral (Vanessa atalanta), upperwing:

Red Admiral, underwing:

Red-banded Hairstreak (Calycopis cecrops), underwing:

Red-spotted Purple (Limenitis arthemis):

Ruddy Daggerwing (Marpesia petreus),upperwing:

Rural Skipper (Ochlodes agricola), upperwing:

Rural Skipper, underwing:

Sandhill Skipper (Polites sabuleti), upperwing:

Silver-bordered Fritillary (Boloria selene), upperwing:

Silver-bordered Fritillary, underwing:

Silver-spotted Skipper (Epargyreus clarus), upperwing:

In 1994 Miguel Alcubierre was able to construct a valid solution to the equations of general relativity that enable a warp drive. But now we need to tackle the rest of relativity: How do we arrange matter and energy to make that particular configuration of spacetime possible?

There are three known types of black holes: supermassive black holes that lurk in the hearts of galaxies, stellar mass black holes formed from stars that die as supernovae, and intermediate mass black holes with masses between the two extremes. It's generally thought that the intermediate ones form from the mergers of stellar mass black holes. If that is true, there should be a forbidden range between stellar and intermediate masses. A range where the mass is too large to have formed from a star but too small to be the sum of mergers. But a new study of data from LIGO suggests that there are black holes in that forbidden range.

In 2013, I posed some questions to readers about the meaning of life, and there were a lot of responses (373 of them!). To quote part of my post:

Here’s survey I’m taking to see whether a theory I have, which is mine, bears any resemblance to reality. Here are two questions I’d like readers to answer in the comments. Here we go:

If a friend asked you these questions, how would you answer them?

1.) What do you consider the purpose of your life?

2.) What do you see as the meaning of your life?

There was general agreement that the meaning and purpose of life is self-made: there was no intrinsic meaning or purpose.  Only religious people think there’s a pre-made meaning and purpose, and it’s always to follow the dictates of one’s god or faith. And there aren’t too many believers around here.

Now the Guardian has an article posing the same question, but asking 15 different people, many of them notables. The answers vary, and I’ll give a few (click the screenshot below to see the article). As Reader Alan remarked after reading the Guardian piece and sending me the link,  “No one mentions God and none seem to have a God shaped hole in their lives.” 

So much for Ross Douthat and what I call “The New Believers” to go along with “The New Atheists.”  The New Believers I see as smart people who have thrown in their lot with superstition and unevidenced faith; they include Doubthat, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Jordan Peterson, and, apparently, the staff of The Free Press. 

Bailey’s intro:

Like any millennial, I turned to Google for the answers. I trawled through essays, newspaper articles, countless YouTube videos, various dictionary definitions and numerous references to the number 42, before I discovered an intriguing project carried out by the philosopher Will Durant during the 1930s. Durant had written to Ivy League presidents, Nobel prize winners, psychologists, novelists, professors, poets, scientists, artists and athletes to ask for their take on the meaning of life. His findings were collated in the book On the Meaning of Life, published in 1932.

I decided that I should recreate Durant’s experiment and seek my own answers. I scoured websites searching for contact details, and spent hours carefully writing the letters, neatly sealing them inside envelopes and licking the stamps. Then I dropped them all into the postbox and waited …

Days, and then weeks, passed with no responses. I began to worry that I’d blown what little money I had on stamps and stationery. Surely, at least one person would respond?

. . . . . What follows is a small selection of the responses, from philosophers to politicians, prisoners to playwrights. Some were handwritten, some typed, some emailed. Some were scrawled on scrap paper, some on parchment. Some are pithy one-liners, some are lengthy memoirs. I sincerely hope you can take something from these letters, just as I did.

And his question:

I am currently replicating Durant’s study, and I’d be most appreciative if you could tell me what you think the meaning of life is, and how you find meaning, purpose and fulfilment in your own life?

A selection of my favorites:

Hillary Mantel, author (I’m reading her Wolf Hall at the moment; it won the Booker Prize):

I’ve had your letter for a fortnight, but I had to think about it a bit. You use two terms interchangeably: “meaning” and “purpose”. I don’t think they’re the same. I’m not sure life has a meaning, in the abstract. But it can have a definite purpose if you decide so – and the carrying through, the effort to realise the purpose, makes the meaning for you.

It’s like alchemy. The alchemists were on a futile quest, we think. There wasn’t a philosopher’s stone, and they couldn’t make gold. But after many years of patience exercised, the alchemist saw he had developed tenacity, vision, patience, hope, precision – a range of subtle virtues. He had the spiritual gold, and he understood his life in the light of it. Meaning had emerged.

I’m not sure that many people decide to have a purpose, with the meaning emerging later, but some do. A doctor or nurse, for example, might see their purpose to save lives or help the ill.  I suppose I could say my purpose was to “do science,” but that’s only because that’s what I enjoyed, and I didn’t see doing evolutionary genetics it as a “purpose.”

Kathryn Mannix, palliative care specialist.  I always like to see what those who take care of the dying say about their patients, as I think I could learn about how to live from those at the end of their lives. Sadly, the lesson is always the same: “Live life to the fullest.” That is not so easy to do! Her words:

Every moment is precious – even the terrible moments. That’s what I’ve learned from spending 40 years caring for people with incurable illnesses, gleaning insights into what gives our lives meaning. Watching people living their dying has been an enormous privilege, especially as it’s shown me that it isn’t until we really grasp the truth of our own mortality that we awaken to the preciousness of being alive.

Every life is a journey from innocence to wisdom. Fairy stories and folk myths, philosophers and poets all tell us this. Our innocence is chipped away, often gently but sometimes brutally, by what happens to us. Gradually, innocence is transformed to experience, and we begin to understand who we are, how the world is, and what matters most to us.

The threat of having our very existence taken away by death brings a mighty focus to the idea of what matters most to us. I’ve seen it so many times, and even though it’s unique for everyone, there are some universal patterns. What matters most isn’t success, or wealth, or stuff. It’s connection and relationships and love. Reaching an understanding like this is the beginning of wisdom: a wisdom that recognises the pricelessness of this moment. Instead of yearning for the lost past, or leaning in to the unguaranteed future, we are most truly alive when we give our full attention to what is here, right now.

Whatever is happening, experiencing it fully means both being present and being aware of being present. The only moment in our lives that we can ever have any choice about is this one. Even then, we cannot choose our circumstances, but we can choose how we respond: we can rejoice in the good things, relax into the delightful, be intrigued by the unexpected, and we can inhabit our own emotions, from joy to fear to sorrow, as part of our experience of being fully alive.

I’ve observed that serenity is both precious and evanescent. It’s a state of flow that comes from relaxing into what is, without becoming distracted by what might follow. It’s a state of mind that rests in appreciation of what we have, rather than resisting it or disparaging it. The wisest people I have met have often been those who live the most simply, whose serenity radiates loving kindness to those around them, who have understood that all they have is this present moment.

That’s what I’ve learned so far, but it’s still a work in progress. Because it turns out that every moment of our lives is still a work in progress, right to our final  breath.

This is more or less what Sam Harris has to say in many of his meditation “moments.”  Sadly, living each day to the fullest is hard to do, at least for me.

Gretchen Rubin, author and happiness expert.  She’s written and studied a lot about happiness, so she should know:

In my study of happiness and human nature, and in my own experiences, I have found that the meaning of life comes through love. In the end, it is love – all kinds of love – that makes meaning.

In my own life, I find meaning, purpose and fulfilment by connecting to other people – my family, my friends, my community, the world. In some cases, I make these connections face-to-face, and in others, I do it through reading. Reading is my cubicle and my treehouse; reading allows me better to understand both myself and other people.

I agree with her 100% on reading, and there are many times that I’d rather be curled up with a good book than socializing. However, we evolved in small groups of people and clearly are meant to be comfortable in these groups and bereft without them. Though we can overcome that, evolution tells us a bit about what kinds of things we should find fulfilling.

Matt Ridley, science writer.

There never has been and never will be a scientific discovery as surprising, unexpected and significant as that which happened on 28 February 1953 in Cambridge, when James Watson and Francis Crick found the double-helix structure of DNA and realised that the secret of life is actually a very simple thing: it’s infinite possibilities of information spelled out in a four-letter alphabet in a form that copies itself.

I think he fluffed the question, which is given above.  He says nothing about how he finds meaning, fulfillment, and purpose in his own life. Nothing!

One more:

Charles Duhigg, author of The Power of Habit:

What is the meaning of life? I can honestly say: I have no idea. But I write this in London, where I am visiting with my wife and two boys. And they are healthy and safe, and (mostly) happy, and there’s joy in watching their delights: a clothing stall with a jacket they’ve long wanted; the way the double-decker bus carries us above the fray; a monument to scientific discoveries beside a flower garden and goats.

I’m surrounded by evidence – of the blitz, D-day, colonies despoiled, JFK and MLK and 9/11 – that all could be otherwise. I hear about bombs falling on innocents, an uncertain election, a faltering climate, and many of us lacking the will (or charity) to change.

Yet still I marvel that we flew here in under 12 hours – while my ancestors required months and tragedies to transit in reverse – and that I will send this note simply by hitting a button, and we can love whomever we want, and see and speak to them at any hour, and a pandemic did not end my life, did not kill my children’s dreams, did not make society selfish and cruel.

And, for now, that’s enough. I do not need to know the meaning of life. I do not need to know the purpose of it all. Simply breathing while healthy and safe, and (mostly) happy is such a surprising, awe-inducing, humbling gift that I have no right to question it. I won’t tempt fate. I won’t look that gift horse in the mouth. I’ll simply hope my good fortune continues, work hard to share it with others, and pray I will remember this day, this moment, if my luck fades .

 This is an edited extract from The Meaning of Life: Letters from Extraordinary People and their Answer to Life’s Biggest Question, edited by James Bailey and published by Robinson on 3 April.

He finds meaning and purpose, as I’ve said myself, in simply doing what gives you pleasure, but Duhigg adds on that he extracts extra meaning from being amazed at what humans can do, and that he is not suffering like others.

Now is your chance to weigh in. How would you answer Bailey’s question? I would, as I said, say that there is no intrinsic meaning and purpose in life; I do what brings me pleasure or satisfaction, and then, post facto, pretend that that is my meaning and purpose.

We begin today’s cat trifecta with the in comparable Kiffness, who often makes songs out of cat noises. Here he presents a song called “Look I’m Gay (Why Are You Gay?” I suppose the answer is, “I was born that way.”

********************

 

This article from ZME Science (click screenshot to read) gives you an opportunity to participate in a citizen-science project about can ancestry and behavior, even getting a DNA sample from your cat (that costs extra);

An excerpt:

“Cats are one of the least-studied companion animals in genomics, and as a result we are missing out on all that genetics can tell us about their ancestry, behavior, and health,” said Dr. Elinor Karlsson, Chief Scientist at Darwin’s Ark and Director of the Vertebrate Genomics Group at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. “That’s why I’m so excited about Darwin’s Cats’ fur-based DNA collection. It’s easy on the cat and easy to scale, making it possible for us to level up cat genetics research.”

Warning: clicking on the link above takes you to a post on the de-extinction of the woolly mammoth. The “Darwin’s Cats” page is here.

Darwin’s Cats was launched in mid-2024 and has already analyzed genetic data from over 3,000 cats. Traditionally, collecting an animal’s DNA required either a cheek swab or, worse, a blood draw — both of which cats tend to resent. Darwin’s Cats is bypassing the battle with claws and fangs by introducing a revolutionary, stress-free method: DNA extraction from fur.

Joining is simple. Any cat owner can sign up for free. You then share details about your cat’s appearance, health, and behavior. Those who wish to go a step further can order a DNA sequencing kit with a tax-deductible $150 donation, which covers the cost of sequencing and analysis. Once 1,000 samples have been processed, participants will receive insights into their cat’s genetic background.

. . . Cats have lived alongside humans for thousands of years, yet they remain, in many ways, an enigma. Unlike dogs, whose domestication was carefully shaped by human breeding, cats largely domesticated themselves. Understanding their genetics could reveal not just the hidden history of our housecats, but also help us figure out ways to keep them healthier for longer.

And while this project is about unraveling feline DNA, it’s also about something bigger: bringing everyday people (and cats) into the world of genetic research. By crowd-sourcing data from thousands of cats, researchers can finally fill the gaps in our understanding of feline evolution and domestication. In short, this study could help cats live longer, healthier, and happier lives.

Researchers who weren’t involved with the study also praised the initiative. A spokesperson for the charity International Cat Care (iCatCare) told The Guardian: “We’re really interested in the collaborative approach of Darwin’s Ark, particularly in encouraging pet owners as community scientists to help advance the collective scientific understanding of cats as a species.”

You have to sign up to do this, and yes, you can take research surveys, but the main point seems to be to squeeze money out of you to get your cat’s DNA sequenced. What will that tell you? “50% alley, 10% Persian, 40% Ashkenazi Jew”?  But there are other sites that do this too. Here’s one that will sequence your cat’s entire genome for $499.  The Guardian has an article on this project that makes it seem more serious (click to read):

 

An excerpt:

Cat owners are being asked share their pet’s quirky traits and even post researchers their fur in an effort to shed light on how cats’ health and behaviour are influenced by their genetics.

The scientists behind the project, Darwin’s Cats, are hoping to enrol 100,000 felines, from pedigrees to moggies, with the DNA of 5,000 cats expected to be sequenced in the next year.

The team say the goal is to produce the world’s largest feline genetic database.

“Unlike most existing databases, which tend to focus on specific breeds or veterinary applications, Darwin’s Cats is building a diverse, large-scale dataset that includes pet cats, strays and mixed breeds from all walks of life,” said Dr Elinor Karlsson, the chief scientist at the US nonprofit organisation Darwin’s Ark, director of the vertebrate genomics group at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and associate professor at the UMass Chan medical school.

“It’s important to note, this is an open data project, so we will share the data with other scientists as the dataset grows,” she added.

The project follows on the heels of Darwin’s Dogs, a similar endeavour that has shed light on aspects of canine behaviour, disease and the genetic origins of modern breeds.

Darwin’s Cats was launched in mid-2024 and already has more than 3,000 cats enrolled, although not all have submitted fur samples.

Participants from all parts of the world are asked to complete a number of free surveys about their pet’s physical traits, behaviour, environment, and health.

However, at present, DNA kits – for owners to submit fur samples – can be sent only to US residents, and a donation of $150 (£120) for one cat is requested to cover the cost of sequencing and help fund the research.

Karlsson added the team had developed a method to obtain high-quality DNA from loose fur without needing its roots – meaning samples can simply be collected by brushing.

The researchers hope that by combining insights from cats’ DNA with the survey results they can shed light on how feline genetics influences what cats look like, how they act and the diseases they experience.

But of course if they’re building a genetic database they need genetics, and that means they need that $150 out of your pocket. If you’re willing to do that, fine, but do you get any information back about your cat, or are you just funding another group’s research project? I don’t know, but if you’re helping them, you shouldn’t have to pay!

*************************

Finally, from Instagram, a “1970s vintage psychedelic disco cat ballet”.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Psychedelic Archives (@psychedelicarchives)

*************************

Lagniappe: Cats react to mice shown on t.v.: a “Whak-A-Mouse” game that seems to keep the cat entertained.

h/t: Debra, Ginger K.

Scientists have unveiled a groundbreaking chemical process that could streamline the development of pharmaceutical compounds, chemical building blocks that influence how drugs interact with the body.

To make a warp drive you have to arrange spacetime so that you never locally travel faster than light but still arrive at your destination…faster than light. And in 1994 Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre figured out how.

Researchers are leveraging machine learning to improve additive manufacturing, also commonly known as 3D printing. The team introduces a new framework they've dubbed the Accurate Inverse process optimization framework in laser Directed Energy Deposition (AIDED). The new AIDED framework optimizes laser 3D printing to enhance the accuracy and robustness of the finished product. This advancement aims to produce higher quality metal parts for industries, such as aerospace, automotive, nuclear and health care, by predicting how the metal will melt and solidify to find optimal printing conditions.

From laundry detergent to dishwasher tablets, cleaning products are an indispensable part of life. Yet the chemicals that make these products so effective can be difficult to break down or could even trigger ecosystem-altering algal blooms. Now, researchers have addressed those challenges with an environmentally compatible detergent made of tiny wood fibers and corn protein that removes stains on clothes and dishes just as well as commercial products.

A researcher has conducted an experimental demonstration of intricate and previously theorized behaviors in the fundamental patterns that govern oscillatory systems in nature and technology.

The European Space Agency is considering a mission to a metal-rich asteroid. The target is Kleopatra, an M-type asteroid with two moons. These asteroids are relatively common, but they're difficult to observe because they're in the middle and outer regions of the main asteroid belt.

Firefly Aerospace's Blue Ghost 1 has completed its brief lunar mission. The lander spent two weeks conducting operations on the surface of the Moon before witnessing its final sunset as the Sun dipped below the horizon. This sunset marked the end of the mission, as Blue Ghost lacks the capability to maintain warmth during the freezing cold lunar night. Despite its short operational period, the lander accomplished its objectives, successfully testing all ten NASA payloads, gathering valuable data, and transmitting the findings back to Earth.

It's not a just a revolutionary and safe vaccine technology – mRNA could help make the best and most expensive drugs in the world affordable for everyone