News Feeds

Self-healing coatings are advanced materials that can repair damage, such as scratches and cracks on their own. Researchers have developed an efficient method for preparing self-healing films consisting of alternating layers of highly cross-linked organosiloxane and linear polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). Their film is more durable than conventional self-healing PDMS materials, offering superior hardness and greater thermal stability while self-healing at mild temperatures, paving the way for stronger, more reliable, and easier-maintained self-healing materials.

Researchers present gum tragacanth as a plant-based alternative to gelatin for creating edible films. The team developed films containing different concentrations of gelatin and gum tragacanth and monitored their survivability in water and saline solutions. They found the optimal combination of gum tragacanth and gelatin for maintaining the gelatin's gel-like behavior was a 3-to-1 ratio of the two, respectively. However, gum tragacanth's inclusion leads to a more porous film, making it prone to penetration by water or saline solutions. Though gum tragacanth cannot replace gelatin completely just yet, even a partial replacement is a step forward.

Medical imaging experts are adept at solving common optical illusions, according to new research. The research is the first to show that people can be trained to do better at solving visual illusions, which was previously thought to be near-impossible. The study shows that medical imaging experts are particularly accurate at judging the size of objects in common optical illusions. In other words, they also literally see better in everyday life!

The latest issue of the London Review of Books contains a long essay by Judith Butler attacking Trump’s Executive Orders, particularly 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”  You can read her piece by clicking on the title below:

 

The piece constitutes good news, bad news, and mixed news.  The good news is that Butler’s prose is, for once, comprehensible (usually she writes in such dense academic jargon that you can barely work out her meaning). The mixed news is that she does say some stuff I agree with: stuff about the rights of those who are gender nonconformists. And she also calls out Trump for allowing the snatching up of visa- and green-card holders who get deported simply for saying things (mostly pro-Palestinian) that the government doesn’t like. I oppose that. No deportations without through legal investigation and, I think, a court hearing!

The bad news is that Butler falls prey to common misconceptions about sex. One is her opposition to the biological definition of sex using gametes, a definition to which I adhere. This, says, Butler, is wrong, and that definition was promulgated by Trump simply as a way to erase trans and nonbinary people. She justifies her opposition by referring to the “tri-societies” letter published on the Society for the Study of Evolution‘s webpage, a letter that many of us criticized heavily for denying the binary nature of sex and asserting that sex was nonbinary in all species. Here’s how she characterizes that letter:

There are two significant problems with using gametes to define sex. First, no one checks gametes at the moment of sex assignment, let alone at conception (when they don’t yet exist). They are not observable. To base sex assignment on gametes is therefore to rely on an imperceptible dimension of sex when observation remains the principal way sex is assigned. Second, most biologists agree that neither biological determinism nor biological reductionism provides an adequate account of sex determination and development. As the Society for the Study of Evolution explains in a letter published on 5 February, the ‘scientific consensus’ defines sex in humans as a ‘biological construct that relies on a combination of chromosomes, hormonal balances, and the resulting expression of gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. There is variation in all these biological attributes that make up sex.’

Let’s first get out of the way the canard that the sex of babies is not determined by using gametes, so gametes are irrelevant to defining sex. Here she conflates “determination” with “definition”, a bad move for someone as smart as Butler. (But of course she has an agenda.) Yes, babies’ sex is written down at birth nearly always by looking at their genitals, but genitals are imperfectly correlated with the reproductive apparatus that is used to define sex: whether one has the apparatus to make sperm or eggs. One may well find out later that genitals, particularly if they’re abnormal, are not an indicator of one’s biological sex.

Worse, though is that Butler is seemingly unaware of the controversy engendered by the tri-societies announcement. No, we do not know that the definition above is the “consensus” definition of sex, for none of the three Societies canvassed its members. And of course the Societies got themselves into the weeds by arguing that sex in humans is “a biological construct that relies on a combination of chromosomes, hormonal balances, and the resulting expression of gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics.” Is that so? Then how do we determine what sex any animal or plant is, given that in some cases chromosomes are irrelevant to determining biological sex, and “hormonal balance” doesn’t work so well in plants?

Seriously, the three societies should either take down that letter, which was never sent, or revise it. And if they’re claiming that it represents a consensus of the members of the societies, then they should poll their members. They did tell us that their letter is moot and needs to be rewritten. In fact, the ASN President admitted that the letter was problematic, hadn’t been sent, and needed revision.  Butler says none of this. Again, she distorts data that could easily have been found had she looked. But again, she has an agenda.Three societies: take down that letter!

Further, Butler buys into the discredited claims of Anne Fausto-Sterling that 1.7% of the American population is intersex and that there were actually five sexes. Fausto-Sterling later admitted that she was writing this “tongue in cheek,” and she and a colleague later revised that figure down to 0.4%. But even later work shows that, using the biological definition of sex and how clinicians themselves define intersex, the true figure is probably between 0.018% and 0.005%.

Now the proportion of intersex people in the population says nothing about how they should be treated, or justifies ignoring them as people. Rather, this shows that Butler is playing fast and loose with the data, and uses the data that supports her own views. That is intellectually dishonest.

Now it is entirely possible—I think likely—that the agenda of Trump’s EO involved more than just clarifying the biological definition of sex and saying sex is binary. His agenda likely involves the Republican distaste for gender-nonconforming people.  I don’t share that distaste, but I do agree with the EO’s definition of sex, which I hear was made with the input of biologists.  And the biological definition of sex, as I’ve said repeatedly, does not target trans or gender-nonconforming people with the intend of erasing them or, as Butler says, “effacing the reality of another group.”

Finally, Butler fails to realize that defining biological sex does have implications for people’s rights, which we can see very clearly when the “rights” of two groups clash, as in sports participation, incarceration, or allowing women to rely on biological women as rape counselors if they request it.  Among all the rights that we enjoy or are supposed to have, the clashed don’t involve many of them. But those clashes are still meaningful, and resolving, say, the sports issue by prohibiting biological men who identify as women to compete in women’s sports in no way “erases” trans-identifying men.  To me does not appear to deprive them of dignity; rather, failing to adhere to this restriction deprives biological women of opportunity. Butler seems impervious to the issue of clashing rights around the definition of sex. The part in bold below (my bolding) is correct–so long as there is no clash of rights between groups:

Although the order here opposes those who would ‘eradicate the biological reality of sex’, it also defines what women’s interests are, what trust in government requires and what is at stake for ‘the entire American system’. Thus, the regulation of sex assignment and the eradication of trans, intersex and non-binary legal existence is a matter of national concern: the ‘entire American system’ is at stake. Of course, the dignity, safety and well-being of women should be secured, but if we value these principles, then it makes no sense to secure one group’s dignity, safety and well-being by depriving another group of dignity, safety and well-being. Indeed, the order effectively consigns trans people to radical indignity and unsafety, if not non-existence. Women – including trans women – and trans, intersexed and non-binary people all deserve to be free of attacks on their dignity, safety and well-being, not only because the principle applies to all of them, but because these categories of person overlap. These are not always distinct populations.

The issues of sports participation, incarceration, and so on, must be adjudicated, and they are being so now. But no resolution deprives gender-nonconforming people of “dignity, safety, and well-being”  (Safety issues do arise, for example, when trans-identified males are put in women’s prisons.)  But of these few instances in which rights clash, there are solutions: “open” sports leagues, for example, or giving women who have been raped a choice between having a biological male or biological female rape counselor.

I don’t want to run on, but I have to say that there are places where I do agree with what Butler says, for instance striving to treat trans or gender-nonconforming people in a way that preserves their dignity, or, with respect to deporting people for free speech, this:

On 8 March, Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent resident of the US with a green card who participated last year in protests against Israel’s war on Gaza, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Trump posted online that ‘this is the first arrest of many to come.’ It may seem that the targeting of people protesting in support of Palestinian freedom has nothing to do with objections to ‘gender ideology’ and the government’s efforts to strip rights from trans people. The link appears, however, when we consider who, or what, is being figured as a threat to American society. Educational institutions and non-profit organisations, especially progressive ones, are at risk of losing their federal tax breaks if they collaborate on projects concerned with Palestine or fail to expel students who engage in spontaneous or ‘unauthorised’ protest. If the Heritage Foundation’s plans become official policy, institutions or organisations that fund work critical of the state of Israel – or, more precisely, work that could be construed as critical – will be deemed antisemitic and supportive of terrorism. If they fund work on race and gender, they will not merely be guilty of ‘wokism’ but regarded as antagonistic to the social order that now defines the United States – in other words, a threat to the nation.

Although I don’t agree with Butler about the close connection with trans rights and deporting dissenters, I do agree that criticism of the government should not be punished with deportation, and that such behavior is indeed a “threat to the nation.”

But there’s a lot more in the article, and you can read it for free by clicking on the link above. In the meantime, though, Butler should have done her homework.

Even animals with very small brains turn out to have cultural traditions, which poses a puzzler for biologists wondering what makes human culture unique

As semaglutide-based weight loss treatments such as Ozempic and Wegovy become more popular, new side effects are emerging – and one is hair loss

Urine that has sat in the sun for a while seems to fertilise crops while warding off pests, without affecting the produce's taste

Recently, Columbia University caved into the Trump administration’s demands that unless the University reformed itself (mostly doing things to dispel the anti-Semitic climate), they would lose $400 million in federal funding. While most of the changes demanded were good ones, I object to the administration using science funding as a club to bludgeon Columbia into compliance. (On the other hand, Columbia wasn’t doing much, but why should science be the field to take the brunt?)  And Columbia’s caving led to the forced resignation of the interim President, Katrina Armstrong.

It’s no surprise, then, that the next target of the administration is that bastion of Lefty Communist Woke Socialism, Harvard University.  Yep, they’re being bludgeoned, too, and also about anti-Semitism. As the NYT reports (article archived here):

The Trump administration said on Monday that it was reviewing roughly $9 billion in federal grants and contracts awarded to Harvard, claiming that the university had allowed antisemitism to run unchecked on its campus.

In a statement on Monday, the administration said that it was examining about $256 million in contracts, as well as an additional $8.7 billion in what it described as “multiyear grant commitments.”

The announcement of the investigation suggested that Harvard had not done enough to curb antisemitism on campus but was vague about what the university could do to satisfy the Trump administration.

“While Harvard’s recent actions to curb institutionalized antisemitism — though long overdue — are welcome, there is much more that the university must do to retain the privilege of receiving federal taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars,” Josh Gruenbaum, a senior official at the General Services Administration, said in a statement.

“This administration has proven that we will take swift action to hold institutions accountable if they allow antisemitism to fester,” he added. “We will not hesitate to act if Harvard fails to do so.”

I didn’t know that, though, when I woke up this morning and found this email from the President Alan Garber, who was also an interim President after Claudine Gay’s resignation but now will be serving as a regular President until 2027.  Read what I got and you tell me: is Harvard about to cave, too? I have bolded the parts that suggest that Harvard will do what the administration wants. Again, Harvard did, I think, need to change to get rid of its antisemitic climate, but I would prefer that it do so voluntarily rather than be forced to.

I’ve bolded the parts below suggesting that Harvard is about to cut a deal with the administration:

Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

Earlier today, the federal government’s task force to combat antisemitism issued a letter putting at risk almost $9 billion in support of research at Harvard and other institutions, including hospitals in our community. If this funding is stopped, it will halt life-saving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation.

The government has informed us that they are considering this action because they are concerned that the University has not fulfilled its obligations to curb and combat antisemitic harassment. We fully embrace the important goal of combatting antisemitism, one of the most insidious forms of bigotry. Urgent action and deep resolve are needed to address this serious problem that is growing across America and around the world. It is present on our campus. I have experienced antisemitism directly, even while serving as president, and I know how damaging it can be to a student who has come to learn and make friends at a college or university.

For the past fifteen months, we have devoted considerable effort to addressing antisemitism. We have strengthened our rules and our approach to disciplining those who violate them. We have enhanced training and education on antisemitism across our campus and introduced measures to support our Jewish community and ensure student safety and security. We have launched programs to promote civil dialogue and respectful disagreement inside and outside the classroom. We have adopted many other reforms, and we will continue to combat antisemitism and to foster a campus culture that includes and supports every member of our community.

We still have much work to do. We will engage with members of the federal government’s task force to combat antisemitism to ensure that they have a full account of the work we have done and the actions we will take going forward to combat antisemitism. We resolve to take the measures that will move Harvard and its vital mission forward while protecting our community and its academic freedom. By doing so, we combat bias and intolerance as we create the conditions that foster the excellence in teaching and research that is at the core of our mission.

Much is at stake here. In longstanding partnership with the federal government, we have launched and nurtured pathbreaking research that has made countless people healthier and safer, more curious and more knowledgeable, improving their lives, their communities, and our world. But we are not perfect. Antisemitism is a critical problem that we must and will continue to address. As an institution and as a community, we acknowledge our shortcomings, pursue needed change, and build stronger bonds that enable all to thrive. Our commitment to these ends—and to the teaching and research at the heart of our University—will not waver.

Sincerely,
Alan M. Garber

I cannot interpret this other than as Harvard capitulating to the administration’s demands. Neither the administration nor Harvard are specific here, and Harvard does admit that it still has a “serious problem” of “antisemitic harassment” (I’m not sure how pervasive the problem still is.)  Indeed, Garber says that he himself has been a victim of antisemitism.  How did that happen? The NYT suggests one explanation:

He may have been referring to a poster showing him with horns and a tail that was displayed by a student group during Harvard’s encampment last year.

There’s a lot more in the NYT piece, so have a look if you’re following the Siege of the Universities.  This is only the beginning!

It’s SHARK DAY!  Today’s shark photos come from Owen Jones, Professor of Law AND Professor of Biological Sciences at Vanderbilt University. Owen’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.

In February 2025, a friend and I joined a week-long live-aboard trip to a patch of Atlantic Ocean about 20 miles north of the Bahamas.  The purpose was to scuba dive among Tiger Sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier), so named because of they typically have dark stripes down the body.  Because the dive guides were bringing the sharks in close with chum, our main task was to neither act like nor look like dead fish.  (Which is why our bare skin, except around the lips, was all covered in dark neoprene – and also why we would actively turn to confront incoming sharks, as a display of vitality and all around non-dead-edness.)

Tiger Sharks, which can grow to approximately 17 feet, and weigh up to 2,000 pounds, have the widest diet of all sharks.  And their especially saw-capable teeth enable them to cut through sea turtles in a way that other sharks can’t.

On one hand, Tiger Sharks are #2, after only Great White Sharks, in recorded fatal attacks on humans.  On the other hand, the absolute number of attacks is quite small.  And Tiger Sharks only rarely attack divers.

At a different location, we had the hoped-for pleasure of seeing Great Hammerheads (Sphyrna mokarran).  They grow to approximately 14 feet and 1200 pounds.  They are the largest of the hammerhead species, and are considered critically endangered.  They are generally shy, and are not considered a major threat to humans.

Your correspondent is on the right in these last two shots.

Sharks like these are absolutely magnificent creatures.  Powerful, nimble, and well-adapted (at least to a world before industrial-scale shark-finning).

At the Dakshineswar temple complex in India, Hanuman langurs beg for food by grabbing visitors’ legs or tugging on their clothes – and they don’t stop until they get their favourite snacks

All of the ways you've heard that deep space wants to kill us — and how plausible or likely each scenario is.

Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

An invaluable resource is being starved to death with no scientific or ethical justification

The post The tragic termination of the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

Could microbes survive in the permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) of the Moon? This is what a recent study presented at the 56th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference hopes to address as a team of researchers from the United States and Canada investigated the likelihood of long-term survival for microbes in the PSR areas of the Moon, which are craters located at the poles that don’t see sunlight due to the Moon’s small axial tilt. This study has the potential to help researchers better understand unlikely locations where they could find life as we know it throughout the solar system.

What can a sample return mission from Jupiter’s volcanic moon, Io, teach scientists about planetary and satellite (moon) formation and evolution? This is what a recent study presented at the 56th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference hopes to address as an international team of more than two dozen scientists discussed the benefits and challenges of a mission to Io with the goal of sampling its volcanic plumes that eject from its surface on a regular basis.

It’s getting a little harder to be the first humans to achieve something but, if all goes to plan, a team of four private astronauts are expected to head off into a polar orbit around Earth aboard the SpaceX Dragon capsule today (31 March) at 9:46pm ET and take the crew over the North and South Poles of Earth. Financed by Chun Wang, a Malta-based investor, they are planning a series of experiments, including attempting to grow oyster mushrooms in microgravity, which could eventually become a source of food for space missions.

After a container ship struck and destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, researchers began calculating the risks of similar catastrophic incidents for other US bridges – and they’re surprisingly high

Astronomers suspect that Europa has cryovolcanoes, regions where briny water could erupt through Europa's ice shell, throwing water—and hopefully organic molecules—into space. NASA's Europa Clipper and ESA's JUICE mission are on their way and will be able to scan the surface of the icy moon for signs of cryovolcanism. What should they be looking for? Pockets of brine just below the surface could be active for 60,000 years and should be warmer than their surroundings.

AI mental health apps may offer a cheap and accessible way to fill the gaps in the overstretched U.S. mental health care system, but ethics experts warn that we need to be thoughtful about how we use them, especially with children.

AI mental health apps may offer a cheap and accessible way to fill the gaps in the overstretched U.S. mental health care system, but ethics experts warn that we need to be thoughtful about how we use them, especially with children.

Researchers have developed an innovative solution to a pressing environmental challenge: removing and destroying per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly called 'forever chemicals.' A new study unveils a method that not only eliminates PFAS from water systems but also transforms waste into high-value graphene, offering a cost-effective and sustainable approach to environmental remediation.