SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " ucl " 957 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Trump Family Businesses Rake in $4 Billion After His Reelection with Focus on AI, Crypto & Nuclear
Ventures launched by the Trump family since Donald Trump’s reelection have generated at least $4 billion in proceeds and paper wealth for the Trump family. With investments across sectors like real estate, hospitality, media, cryptocurrency and more, the Trumps are “increasingly integrating their business empire” into the wider U.S. economy, says David Uberti, who has been reporting on the family’s self-enrichment for The Wall Street Journal. The coupling of Trump’s economic and political influence is raising major questions about conflicts of interest. “You have all of these different business interests in different areas in which the government regulates,” and this “proximity to power may help along some of these deals and the valuations at which they’re made.” We look at the Trumps’ cryptocurrency venture World Liberty Financial and the Trump Organization’s planned $6 billion merger with a firm hoping to build a nuclear fusion plant to power AI data centers with Uberti, who says such “very speculative, highly risky corners of financial markets” are key to the family’s investment strategy.
The science behind ‘new year, new me’
UCLA professor Hengchen Dai has done the research on how the “fresh-start effect” can jump-start your new year’s resolutions.
China’s “artificial sun” just broke a fusion limit scientists thought was unbreakable
Researchers using China’s “artificial sun” fusion reactor have broken through a long-standing density barrier in fusion plasma. The experiment confirmed that plasma can remain stable even at extreme densities if its interaction with the reactor walls is carefully controlled. This finding removes a major obstacle that has slowed progress toward fusion ignition. The advance could help future fusion reactors produce more power.
UCLA shows its strength in convincing win over USC
UCLA dominates a city rival and now looks ahead to Nebraska
Lauren Betts leads No. 4 UCLA to dominant victory over No. 17 USC
Lauren Betts finishes with 18 points and 12 rebounds as the UCLA women's basketball control the game from start to finish in a 80-46 win over rival USC.
Two unstable atoms are rewriting neutron star explosions
Scientists have precisely measured two unstable atomic nuclei that play a crucial role in explosive X-ray bursts on neutron stars. The results reveal faster nuclear reactions than previously thought, reshaping how we understand element formation in extreme cosmic environments.
UCLA study links scar healing to dangerous placenta condition
New research led by UCLA Health suggests that how this scar tissue heals could be the key to better understand how placenta accreta spectrum develops, who is at risk and why the placenta attaches abnormally.
Science in 2050: the future breakthroughs that will shape our world
Nature - Nuclear fusion. People on Mars. Artificial general intelligence. These are just some of the advances that could come by the mid-century mark.
Champions League Power Rankings: New Year's resolutions
The Champions League will be back in 2026 but the European leagues are still running
UCLA Law receives largest gift in school history to expand entertainment and media law programs
UCLA School of Law has received the largest gift in its 76-year history, a planned gift from alumnus Ken Ziffren ’65 that will expand student training and career opportunities in media, entertainment, technology and sports law. Ziffren, a leading entertainment lawyer and co-founder of Ziffren Brittenham, previously helped establish the Ziffren Institute for Media, Entertainment, […]
Letters to Sports: Playing the blame game in USC-Notre Dame debacle
Readers of the Los Angeles Times Sports section share their thoughts on the USC-Notre Dame rivalry, the Rams, UCLA, Angels and college football.
UCLA Fielding School of Public Health recognizes 7 distinguished alums as the 2025 'Hall of Fame' honorees
Recipients include Dr. Anne Rimoin, professor in the UCLA Fielding School’s Department of Epidemiology and Gordon-Levin Endowed Chair in Infectious Diseases and Public Health.
Nine mental-health tips for a happier 2026
Regardless of any resolutions you may have for 2026, one thing is for sure: Everyone wants to have a happy new year.While losing weight or saving money may be great goals, the most straightforward path to happiness is caring for your mental and emotional health. A robust body of research shows that simple cognitive and behavioral strategies can reliably boost happiness and reduce stress – and they’re generally free and accessible to all.These strategies don’t have to be super time-consuming, but they do require intention: They only work if you do them.Here, psychologist Valentina Ogaryan, PhD, clinical director of the Simms/Mann UCLA Center for Integrative Oncology, shares her top tips for cultivating more calm, centeredness and happiness in the new year (or anytime):Make time for playPlay isn’t just for kids, and it’s far from frivolous. The National Institute for Play says engaging in silliness, fun and just-for-pleasure activities reduces stress and increases optimism and resilience. A recent review also found that play improves mental health.“Adults can benefit from play as much as children,” Dr. Ogaryan says, “not just as a reward, but something that helps regulate.”So go ahead and dance with your dog, build something with Legos, tell a joke, sing karaoke or do anything else that feels like fun. Don’t worry about being productive, just enjoy yourself. And, if you can, opt for more analog play, Dr. Ogaryan suggests, as a respite from our ever-more-digital world. Move your bodyWhether you dance, ski, do yoga, play pickleball, ride a bike, roller-skate, hike or lift weights, physical movement benefits overall happiness and well-being. A 2018 review study of more than 1.2 million adults in the U.S. found that doing any kind of exercise was “significantly and meaningfully associated” with better self-reported mental health.The sweet spot was 45 minutes of movement three to five times a week, but even short bursts of physical activity can boost brain health, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.“Movement helps support mood and regulate the nervous system,” Dr. Ogaryan says.Plus: exercise can improve sleep quality, and sleep is essential for mental health.Prioritize sleep“Sleep plays a major role in managing stress,” Dr. Ogaryan says. Research shows that lack of sufficient sleep increases the risk of various diseases, including depression.While stress can interfere with sleep, practicing good sleep hygiene can make logging ZZ’s easier. That means maintaining a consistent bedtime; keeping the bedroom cool, dark and quiet; and avoiding social media, news and stimulating shows before bed.Consume lessWe live in a consumer culture, inundated by endless streams of content and advertising everywhere we go, which makes it easy to get overstimulated.“Something really helpful for stress reduction is to simply consume less,” Dr. Ogaryan says – less news, less social media, less information, less noise, less screen time. “It’s about reducing the input,” she says.Consider setting a maximum number of news articles per day, for example, or a time limit on scrolling. Maybe even go device free for an afternoon or a whole day.Practice present-moment awarenessWith so much coming at us all the time, focusing on the here and now can make life feel more manageable, Dr. Ogaryan says: “When everything feels super overwhelming, when everything feels larger than life, let’s make our world a little bit smaller for that moment in time.”She suggests taking things one day, or even one hour, at a time. Ask yourself: What’s my next right action? Release the need to know how everything turns out and liberate yourself from having to handle everything right now. Let the future take care of itself and just focus on the current moment. Then the next one. Have a daily anchorFrom work to the daily commute to family and life responsibilities, our days can feel jam-packed. Dr. Ogaryan recommends creating a centering daily anchor that can fit into even the busiest day.Maybe it’s a 10-minute walk during your lunch break or mindfully enjoying your coffee in the morning. Let your anchor adapt to your needs each day, she says, but be intentional about using that time to ground yourself and calm your nervous system. You might even say to yourself, “I choose this walk to help me become centered,” or “My day already feels stressful, so I’m going to take the next 10 minutes to enjoy this cup of coffee, feel the warm mug in my hand and just be present.” Having an anchor won’t erase the busy-ness from your day, but it will allow you to approach it more calmly.Be kind to yourselfMost of us have a harsh inner critic in our heads who works overtime. But that critical voice only increases our stress, triggering the same fight-or-flight response as caustic words from another person.To feel happier, we need to replace that inner critic with a kinder, more compassionate voice, Dr. Ogaryan says. Studies show that self-compassion is a source of eudaimonic happiness – the kind of happiness associated with purpose and meaning in life.While our knee-jerk reaction may be to self-criticize – “How could you let it get to this point? You didn’t manage your time well and now the project is going to be late. You’re so inept.” – we fare better mentally by treating ourselves with kindness, like we would a friend. That might sound like, “You’ve got a lot on your plate, but you are capable and you’ll get it done. I believe in you.”We may think that speaking kindly to ourselves means letting ourselves off the hook, so we end up becoming lazy do-nothings. But research shows the opposite: People who are self-compassionate are more likely to try harder in the face of failure and ultimately reach their goals.You can thank your inner critic for its good intentions, but resolve to talk to yourself in a kind, compassionate voice.Connect with othersHumans are social animals built for connection. Stress can be isolating and cause us to withdraw, but connecting with others is a salve for the psyche, Dr. Ogaryan says.“We know that not all relationships are always easy, but if we can think about intentional, nourishing connection – even in really small doses – it could really help center us,” she says.Take a moment to laugh with your colleagues, hug your pet, have a conversation with a friend or smile at the barista making your coffee. A study found that even tiny interactions with casual acquaintances and strangers decreases loneliness and improves happiness and well-being.Seek supportIf you try these practices and happiness remains elusive, or if you can’t access the wherewithal to follow these tips, seek support from your physician or a therapist. Mental health conditions are among the most common health issues in the U.S. and around the world – more prevalent than diabetes or heart disease. One in five people in the U.S. experiences a mental illness each year, with depression and anxiety the most common, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.“We can all think about these tips,” Dr. Ogaryan says. “But it’s important to recognize if you’ve done everything you can and you’re still really struggling, it’s really important to seek help.”
The disunity of science is a feature, not a bug
Mathematical models wield miraculous power, but mistaking them for reality has trapped science in a destructive quest for a “Theory of Everything.” Physicist and philosopher Ragner Fjelland argues that this leads to bloated, Frankenstein theories kept alive by clumsy, ad-hoc amendments, which reduce rather than boost science’s power. Fjelland calls for a radical shift in our attitude: we must reorientate towards creating entirely new theories, celebrating rather than lamenting disunity and diversity in science. Science, from the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century to the present day, has more or less developed in a “reductionist” way. The fundamental assumption is that all sciences may be ordered in a hierarchy that can be represented as an upside-down pyramid. At the top we find the human sciences, and at the bottom physics. Strong (or “ontological”) reductionism maintains that all theories at one level can be completely reduced to the lower level, all the way down to theories of atoms and elementary particles, or whatever is “at the bottom.” In the end, all diversity in the world can be unified in one fundamental theory. Hence it is called a final theory, or a Theory of Everything.One of the central figures in developing the idea of a Theory of Everything is the Dutch theoretical physicist Gerard 't Hooft, who received a Nobel Prize in physics in 1999 for his work. He emphasizes the non-empirical status of the theory:There exists no closely resembling alternative theory. This means that any slight change brought about in the rules would make the theory unlikely or inelegant. The theory will be a "package deal": take it, or leave it. This should hold both for the local laws and for the boundary conditions.This endeavor is not new. On the contrary, it goes all the way back to the birth of Western philosophy 2,500 years ago. The Babylonians made regular astronomical observations during a period of 600 years, from 747 BCE until 150 ACE. They developed mathematical techniques to predict astronomical phenomena, but they made no attempts at explaining them. However, the Greeks developed models, both material and theoretical, to explain the observed phenomena.The best example is Plato’s late dialogue Timaeus. Here he introduces a divine craftsman, the Demiurge, who has constructed the universe according to an original plan. Plato seems to have thought that the original plan is what is actually real, while the material world is merely an imperfect realization of it. He therefore does not, in the Timaeus, reconstruct the material universe, but the original plan, which can then be used to explain the material universe.Plato’s aim in producing a theoretical model is to reconstruct the original plan. That is what he carries out in Timaeus—and some modern physicists have embarked on the same project. For example, Einstein’s basic attitude is reflected in the title of Abraham Pais’ biography: “Subtle is the Lord...,” echoing Einstein’s comment, “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” In an interview Einstein compared our situation to a child who enters a huge library. The child knows that someone has written the books, but he does not know the languages in which they are written. He suspects that there is a mysterious order, but he does not know what it is.___“We have all been working in what Husserl called the Galilean style; that is, we have all been making abstract mathematical models of the universe to which at least the physicists give a higher degree of reality than they accord the ordinary world of sensation.”Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize in Physics (1979)___This Platonist view is contrary to a widespread impression of science, symbolized by the picture of the “father” of modern science, Galileo Galilei, with his telescope. According to this impression, Galileo liberated himself from the dominating metaphysics of his day—basically Aristotelian philosophy—and constructed a telescope that he directed towards the sky, showing that Jupiter has four moons. He also performed experiments with bronze balls rolling down inclined planes and found the law of freely falling bodies.However, in other cases Galileo emphasized the unreliability of our senses. It is easy to see why. He defended Copernicus’ heliocentric hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, we are not at rest at the center of the universe, but moving at a tremendous speed through space. Why don’t we observe this motion? Galileo praises Copernicus because “with reason as his guide he resolutely continued to affirm what sensible experience seemed to contradict.” In other places he directly refers to Plato. SUGGESTED VIEWING The quest for a final theory With Michio Kaku Galileo’s Platonism goes back to his early writings. In The Assayer, published as early as 1623, Galileo compared the universe to a grand book that is written in the language of mathematics, and “its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it.” Therefore, things that cannot be described by mathematics—for example, colors, smells and odors—are not real. They are merely subjective.This division into subjective and objective, advocated by Galileo and his younger contemporary René Descartes, is normally associated with a mechanistic world view, which is regarded as the opposite of Platonism. When we reduce something to, for example, molecules and atoms, we move “downwards.” In contrast, the Platonist moves “upwards,” to abstract entities. However, it only shows that when we address fundamental questions, we should be careful in applying everyday spatial metaphors like “up” and “down.”___Nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world.___The endeavor of finding a Theory of Everything has been heavily criticized. In 2006, the theoretical physicist Lee Smolin published “The Crisis in Fundamental Physics.” He argued that one of the most fundamental principles of science is that we should only regard theories as scientific if we have the possibility to show that they are false by experiments. Although he did not refer to Karl Popper, other critics have referred to Popper and argued that a theory is not scientific if it cannot be falsified (see for example Ellis & Silk 2014).These were not the first physicists to be anti-reductionists. In 1972, the journal Science published an article by the physicist Philip Anderson with the title “More Is Different.” This is the kind of article a scientist would normally write only after he has won a Nobel Prize. However, Anderson won the Nobel Prize for physics five years later, in 1977. The article is amazing, not primarily because it argues in favor of anti-reductionism in general, but because it argues for anti-reductionism within physics itself. Anderson’s conclusion was:At each stage entirely new laws, concepts, and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry.We may say that Plato started the “unity of science movement,” based on Euclidean geometry as the model of all knowledge. A distinguishing mark of geometry is that all possible constructions can be reduced to a few fundamental principles. We have to acknowledge that this approach has limitations. In general, we can easily model technological systems. In addition, we may construct simplified and idealized models that capture important aspects of systems, from various perspectives and for various purposes. But nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world. In a complex system, each level has its distinct, emergent, properties that are characteristic of this level. Therefore, a complex system should be investigated at different levels and from different perspectives. Instead of exclusively pursuing a scientific ideal based on the unity of science, we should acknowledge the diversity—or even the disunity—of science.
CfA Science in the Press at AAS 247 | Center for Astrophysics
Cambridge, Mass. (December 22, 2025)— New scientific results from across the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian (CfA) will be revealed at multiple press conferences and presentations during the 247th meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) from January 5-8, 2026 in Phoenix, Arizona.Presentations will highlight new research, including a deeper look into little red dots, a more complete census of active galactic nuclei, and uncovering properties of early universe dwarf galaxies, a look at Betelgeuse’s binary companion.
Mark Pope and the Cats comeback to beat St. John's in CBS Sports Classic
A game that's been circled on the schedule since St. John's and Rick Pitino replaced UCLA in the CBS Sports Classic.
Letters to Sports: No defense for the Rams, or Bill Plaschke's prediction
Readers of the Los Angeles Times Sports section share their thoughts on the Rams, Dodgers, UCLA and Mick Cronin, as well as the NBA Cup.
Full-length Replay: Cal Poly at UCLA
Cal Poly travels down the Golden Coast for an outing with UCLA at Pauley Pavilion.
Long Beach Sports News, Sports Scores: Long Beach Press-Telegram
Sports News and Sports Scores in Long Beach, including Dodgers, Lakers, Angels Baseball, USC, UCLA and California State University Long Beach
NANO Nuclear Reports Fiscal Year 2025 Financial Results and Provides Business Update
NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. NANO Nuclear Reports Fiscal Year 2025 Financial Results and Provides Business Update Management to hold webcast today at 5:00 pm Eastern New York, N.Y., Dec. 18, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. (NASDAQ: NNE) (“NANO Nuclear” or “the Company”), a leading advanced nuclear micro modular reactor and technology company focused on developing clean energy solutions, today reported its fiscal year 2025 financial results and provided a business update. Figure 1 -
Weird and wonderful science: How elephant poop leads to guitars and 12 other unusual UCLA research findings from 2025
Check out 13 of the year's most unusual discoveries, which prove groundbreaking science doesn’t always look serious at first glance.
7 moments that defined UCLA sports in 2025
Read about the standout performances, major transitions and alumni who made headlines on the biggest stages in sports.
Trump’s social media business is merging with a nuclear fusion company
Truth Social parent company Trump Media & Technology Group announced a deal on Thursday to merge with nuclear fusion company TAE Technologies.
Trump Media to Combine With TAE to Build Nuclear Fusion Business
Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. and TAE Technologies Inc. agreed to combine in an all-stock transaction valued at more than $6 billion.
Riddle of nuclear science professor shot dead at home
Tributes pour in as murder hunt launched after three gunshots heard
12/17 Big Ten basketball preview: Arizona State at UCLA
UCLA battles an old conference foe, USC takes on UTSA and Oregon welcomes in-state Portland all on Wednesday.
Nuno Loureiro, professor and director of MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center, dies at 47
Nuno Loureiro, an MIT professor of nuclear science and engineering and of physics, has died at 47. A theoretical physicist and fusion scientist, and director of the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, Loureiro studied complex problems at the center of fusion vacuum chambers and at the edges of the universe.
Nuno Loureiro, professor and director of MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center, dies at 47
Nuno Loureiro, an MIT professor of nuclear science and engineering and of physics, has died at 47. A theoretical physicist and fusion scientist, and director of the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, Loureiro studied complex problems at the center of fusion vacuum chambers and at the edges of the universe.
MIT professor from Porturgal shot at home has died, police say
Nuno F Gomes Loureiro, 47, a nuclear science and engineering professor was shot "multiple times" on Monday.
Diversity and representation of women on streaming TV series in sharp decline, UCLA study shows
The latest edition of the Hollywood Diversity Report released Tuesday determined that the top shows in 2024 were less culturally diverse than the previous year.
Meet nuclear science PhD graduate, 41, who can ‘see through’ walls
He has come up with a new theory on how waves and rays can be used to see through a wall.
Chancellor Julio Frenk's warm embrace of UCLA sports is a needed, welcome change
The comments by UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk were heartening for anyone who cares about Bruins athletics.
Broncos vs. Packers second quarter recap
The Green Bay Packers began the second quarter with a second down inside the 15. After a short completion to bring up third and six, Jordan Love’s pass was broken up at the goal line by Riley Moss to bring out Brandon McManus for another field goal. Packers 6, Broncos 0. The Denver Broncos offense […]
The West Coast Rivalry: Gonzaga vs. UCLA Preview
A West Coast opposition that seems to always live up to the hype and expected close finish.
Google DeepMind agrees to sweeping research collaboration with the U.K. government
The partnership will focus on nuclear fusion, discovering new materials, AI safety, and the societal impacts of AI.
Why Troy Aikman says he's 'done with' NIL after giving 'sizable check' to UCLA
One particular experience turned Aikman off from giving any more NIL money out
HR giant SHRM faces blowback after a 'nuclear' $11.5 million employee discrimination verdict. Its CEO called it a 'blip.'
After the verdict came down, SHRM CEO Johnny C. Taylor addressed employees in a video, saying the judgment lacked merit.
UCL Power Rankings: Arsenal stay top despite loss to Villa
Champions League returns for the last matchday of 2025
Can we really make GOLD at home? Here’s what science says about its possibilities
There is currently no practical or legal way for individuals to make real gold for profit; the scientifically possible methods are nuclear‑physics experiments that produce vanishingly tiny, astronomically expensive amounts of gold. Here are 5 scientifically discussed approaches.
Chernobyl nuclear site's steel shield is no longer containing radiation effectively after drone strike: IAEA
Ukraine has accused Russia of deliberately targeting the disaster site with a drone strike, which left a 160-square-foot hole in the shield.
Scientists capture most detailed look inside DNA droplets
High-resolution imaging has revealed the internal layout of chromatin condensates, showing how DNA fibers fold and interact within these droplet-like structures. The findings connect molecular architecture to the broader behaviors of these droplets in cells.
Letters to Sports: Rams are overthinking the process
Readers of the Los Angeles Times Sports section give their thoughts on the Rams' loss to the Panthers, UCLA-USC football, UCLA basketball and the Lakers.
Oregon arrives at matchup with UCLA on 4-game skid
UCLA, looking to get back into the Top 25 rankings after a one-week absence, hosts slumping Oregon on Saturday in Los Angeles in a battle of former Pac-12 basketball rivals.
UCLA vs. Oregon Prediction, How to Watch, Odds, Channel
Preview the Dec 6 matchup between the UCLA Bruins and Oregon Ducks with how to watch, tv channel info, predictions, odds, over/under, spread, betting lines and more.
Kroenke Sports and SoFi Stadium are new defendants in Rose Bowl lawsuit against UCLA
Kroenke Sports & Entertainment and SoFi Stadium have been added as defendants in an amended complaint filed by the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena in Los Angeles Superior Court.
UK University Health Pharmacy closing Dec. 19
Patients are able to transfer their prescriptions to another UK Retail Pharmacy location through an online form.
Full-length Replay: UCLA at Washington
The Bruins and Huskies kick off their second Big Ten campaigns. Both teams are 5-2.
How to watch 2025 NCAA men's water polo championship on ESPNU
No. 2 UCLA looks to win back-to-back NCAA men's water polo titles. Here's how to catch the championship game on ESPNU.
Counteracting the Market Dominance That Keeps Health Care So Expensive
Research by UCLA Luskin’s Wesley Yin is one of several projects made possible by nearly $55 million in awards to the school.
Mental health conditions may heighten liver cancer risk in veterans due to increased hepatitis C, UCLA study finds
A new study led by UCLA Health investigators found that mental health conditions, especially alcohol use disorder and PTSD, significantly increase the likelihood of developing liver cancer among Veterans living with cirrhosis of any etiology.
Lane Kiffin arrives in Baton Rouge, as the college football coaching carousel keeps going round and round
Michigan State, UCLA, Kentucky, James Madison, Northwestern all have coaches on the move
Champions League Power Rankings: Who is stopping red-hot Arsenal?
The Gunners won a key match against Bayern Munich and may just be UCL favorites
In a bold move, UCLA hires Bob Chesney to become its next head football coach
UCLA turns to up-and-coming James Madison head coach Bob Chesney, hiring him to rebuild the Bruins football program.
Science must move from materialism to mystery
Theoretical physicist and neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín argues that modern science has become trapped in a framework that mistakes matter for the whole of reality. In this wide-ranging interview, Gómez-Marín challenges the foundations of materialism, defends the scientific study of near-death experiences, and calls for a new type of science grounded in mystery and a renewed sense of the sacred. He suggests that abandoning materialism could open the door to a deeper understanding of consciousness, death, and the purpose of human existence. Simon Custer: You are both a theoretical physicist and a neuroscientist, and you have also been fiercely critical of materialist theories of mind and consciousness. What do you think the ultimate nature of reality is?Àlex Gómez-Marín: I don't know what the ultimate nature of reality is, but what I try to first assess is whether the stories that they [mainstream science] have told us about it are right, or maybe whether there are other alternatives. That's why I've been a fierce critic of materialism. As a scientist, I realized that they had sold us this idea that to be a good scientist you also had to subscribe to many other -isms, like materialism, reductionism, and even secularism. And so first I think one needs to unmount these -isms, and then, as is happening today in consciousness studies, we have a huge landscape where there isn't only one game in town, the idea that matter is the only thing that really exists. But because we are studying the hard problem of consciousness, it may be the case that other views of reality, like idealism, or even dualism, or other theories like dual aspect monism... these are philosophical ideas that now, I think, have room in science to be taken seriously. How does something like materialism relate to dualism or idealism? What is materialism in the first place?Well, materialism is the philosophical position that matter is the only really ‘real’ thing in the universe. And I think that worked kind of well because science started 400 years ago and Galileo made that split, I call it the foundational wound. It was a great business move.He said, let's start doing science on that portion of reality that lends itself more easily to mathematization and measurement. So, for some reason, the solidity of this table or the movement of planets lend themselves very well to this foundational idea of science. But as time went on, 400 years later, we realized that we had forgotten the other side, which is what really matters.What really matters is pain, is love, is feelings, sensation, consciousness, which is very hard to define, but very intimate. We all know what it is. It's that thing that disappears when we go into deep sleep and comes back in the morning. SUGGESTED VIEWING On the edges of knowledge With Michael Shermer, Rupert Sheldrake, Güneş Taylor It's what it is like to be, as Nagel said. It's the feeling of being alive. So, materialism is good to study certain things, but then when it ossifies into this ideology and then is dressed like science, now it's preventing us from understanding these key questions that are really that everybody wants to know.Why are we here? Why do we feel reality? Where do we go when we die? And so we need other ways. We need pluralism. I'm only asking for having more options on the table and taking them seriously. Why does materialism fail to explain consciousness? For example, if you were to lobotomize me, I would not be a functional human being. What do you say to someone who might think that materialism adequately explains the mind?Well, here we could speak about different things. We could talk about physics or about neuroscience. I happen to have training with both.For instance, for neuroscientists, 99% of them, I'm not included in that portion, believe that the brain can only be a productive organ. It's an organ that somehow, somewhere, consciousness emerges. It's like a lamp. And then something happens, magic happens, and then consciousness emerges.That's the position you need to be if you're a materialist because if the only really ‘real’ thing is matter, then you need to say, just give us some more time and money and we'll figure out how mind emerges or is produced from matter. There are many philosophically sophisticated ways of criticizing this.Now there's another option, which is the brain as a permissive organ. This was said by William James more than 100 years ago.Now then the brain wouldn't be like this machine, like for instance, a heat engine whose smoke is consciousness, which is what we would have in the first big model, the productive model. But in the permissive model, the brain would be a kind of a filter. And so the brain would still have a very important role in consciousness, but it wouldn't be a productive role.It would be permissive, much like a filter or much like a prism which would receive light. And - I'm speaking metaphorically - it would receive the light of the mind and then it could reflect it and refract it.Now, with these two big options on the table, I think we can make progress into what I call the edges of consciousness, which are all these experiences, weird experiences that many people have, but we don't talk about enough, like near-death experiences, precognitive dreams, synchronicities. These experiences are very important for humans and they have a place in the permissive hypothesis and they are literally impossible in the productive hypothesis. So that's yet one more reason to explore alternatives to materialism. There may be anecdotal evidence for near-death experiences, but is there robust evidence that would be accepted by the majority of scientists who subscribe to the scientific method?Sure. And the plural of anecdotes, someone said, is data.And there's a lot of data. Actually, this year is the 50th anniversary, half a century, since Dr. Raymond Moody realized that we have two ears and one mouth and started listening to what his patients had to say about their experiences while they were clinically dead.The heart had stopped, breathing had stopped in these patients. These patients would come back and tell him these amazing stories that some people may say are hallucinations, but for the patients were hyper-real, like seeing light at the end of the tunnels, seeing deceased family members waiting for them, feeling bliss.___I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain.___And so he and others started taking them seriously and writing their accounts down. And then you can do a science based on that material of experience that people have. Now, on the more objective side, more recently people have started to measure what's going on in the brain when people are clinically dead and brought back. This has opened a proper field of study, which is near-death studies.Evidence is a difficult word, because sometimes people think that when you say evidence, this is just the final proof. Evidence is like in a jury. You bring testimony, you bring pieces of data that point in one direction or another.I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain. When brains are broken or shut off, there can still be mind going on. And that's revolutionary.That would entail that when we die, it's not game over, which, by the way, is the thesis of materialism. If consciousness survives, materialism dies. It's game over for materialism if something of us continues after we die. Do you think that there is mental continuity after death?Well, I think so, and I believe so, and I could also say I may have experienced it myself, because four years ago I had a near-death experience. I was in the hospital, I lost a lot of blood, and I saw those beings at the end of the tunnel, three beings, and there was yellow light. I was in a well, I was looking upwards, and I hadn't read about NDEs by then, but when I came back from this experience, I decided I would try to integrate this also in my professional life. Not just my personal life, of course, but my professional life as a physicist and as a neuroscientist. So I may have had the experience of glimpses of what an afterlife would be, and I'm not ashamed to say it in this way, and then one can do science of it, and then one can do philosophy of it.One can think about what -isms we were discussing, what views on reality would allow those experiences to be really ‘real,’ as opposed to, well, poor guy, the brain was kind of broken, it must have been a hallucination. Do you have a view about whether individuality or “the ego” persists after death, or whether we sort of merge into some sort of cosmic consciousness instead?I don't know, but my view would be along those lines you're suggesting. I think we could speak about a kind of universal mind, and then the problem is not how we emerge from matter, but how we fragment from a more holistic consciousness into these individual eddies and then when we die, this kind of dissipates.But I'm not sure. For instance, idealism would promote that view, but then what would survive of us after these eddies just vanish and become again the big Consciousness, I'm not sure what that would be. I don't know for sure, but I would tell you I believe something of us survives.And there are other lines of research, not just near-death experience, that can address this really hard question of survival. For instance, there are children who remember previous lives. This was studied by Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia for more than 50 years.___Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.___It's amazing research. He went all over the world, especially in the East, and collected all these case studies, all these stories. In plural, these were data of kids, very young age, who would describe up to 40 items that then he could go and verify.There was no internet. There was really no way the kid could know. Why would the kid say that when I was living in this other body and I was a woman and that's how my house would look like or that's how I would die, right? Again, there is evidence, not proof, but there's evidence not only that something weird and interesting is happening as we cross the threshold, but also when we come back to this life.Scientists should not be afraid of studying this, but they are because there's stigma. There's usually stigma upon the enigma, and this is so unfortunate. And one of the reasons is because of the ideology of materialism, because those things cannot be possible. What is wrong with the politics of science such that they have generated this stigma?So many things. Science is a human activity to begin with.So it falls prey to all our passions and ego and greed. That's one thing. Science is a job for the good and for the bad.You need to get a salary. You need to get grants. Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.And then, we didn't have time to unpack this, but science for many years become entangled, as I was suggesting before, to other -isms, materialism, secularism. So anything that smells like the afterlife, people may think has to do with God, and then they freak out.Anything that suggests that there's something about the mind that may not need a physical material substrate to exist, it smells like non-materialism. So, all these -isms are ideologically blocking that kind of research, and then there are all these sociopolitical constraints as to what should be studied and what shouldn't be studied.I call it the backstage of science. Sometimes we scientists or science communicators seem to speak as if the data is the only thing that matters. We say, well, data and theory.But then there's a third leg of this stool, which is all the politics that goes behind the scenes. And we often don't speak about this, and it's quite vicious and petty, and it's very real. Why is materialism so attractive to most scientists?Well, an easy answer is because we've grown up with it.It's what the educational system promotes, and that's what you hear when you go to university. So it's like growing in a culture. It feels like the air in which you breathe.So it's very hard to begin with to detect, well, maybe there's another alternative. Maybe there are other ways of doing science, other environments in which one could do science. That's one reason.And other reasons maybe are more profound, and I'm not qualified to explain them, but I could say, looking at this 400-year history of science, since it started around 1623 with Galileo's book The Assayer, that science went and coupled with all what's going on in the West.And so the fall of religion, you could say, and science presented us this new alternative that then could be coupled very well with other -isms, and this idea of growth, and then science losing its good twin brother, which was philosophy. There's a whole natural history of science starting as philosophy, kind of emancipating or breaking out from philosophy, and then marrying technology, and then marrying other social systems.From that point of view, materialism is a very convenient idea to propose. There were attempts, like the German idealists tried to do a more romantic science. But no, the idea prevailed, like Francis Bacon said: You should pursue nature through all her corners, he said, and make her spill her secrets.Our attitude towards nature in the science that dominates is very much reflecting how we treat nature in our society, in our culture, like a resource to extract secrets by force and then dominate it. How is materialism related to the notions of growth and progress? What's wrong with having a productive citizenry?This is another very interesting and very difficult question to answer.But there's this recent book coming out by Paul Kingsnorth. In it, he explains this idea of the machine and this idea of progress. And this, again, this conflation of more is better, of we need to go forward always, and convincing us that the way to do that is to continually extract more from nature. But because we don't have the religious context anymore, because God is dead, then what do we have? We have what we can do as humans with our own gadgets.It's kind of the story of the Promethean fire. We will just build anything to make ourselves God.A good example today is transhumanism. Transhumanism is this pseudo-religion dressed in technoscientific language whose goal is very religious. They promise immortality, they promise redemption, they promise transformation of the entire natural world, but it's done by human means through technology. Are you suggesting that we can't have ethics without religion?Well, we should have ethics with or without religion. That's another pruning that has happened in science. We say, forget about aesthetics, although some physicists still think that beautiful means probably true, and forget about politics. We pretend there's no backstage of science, and even let's forget about ethics.___Science needs to be in the service of mankind.___Scientists, when they become more like engineers, they're just thinking how to make things work so that they can go to the moon, go to Mars, make machines that think, but they don't think whether that's a good idea.And also consider metaphysics. Many scientists for a long time pretended, and maybe that comes from the stream of positivisms, that really one doesn't need metaphysics at all, except that materialism is always the metaphysics running the system.You see, it's not just ethics. It's the pruning of all of these, you could say, five main legs of philosophy that just makes a kind of unconscious science, a science that doesn't really know what it's doing. It's doing it very well locally, but it just doesn't know what it's doing globally. Do you think science has to have an ultimate vision and purpose behind it for it to be effective or for it to be meaningful and transformative?Yes, a way I would say that is that science needs to be in the service of mankind. And it hasn't been that. And we can see it through, you know, when we discovered the secrets of the atom, and all of a sudden, the Manhattan Project, and then we create nuclear weapons.And now we're trying to crack how machines may think, and now we're creating this mess, right? So science needs to be in service of mankind, not in service of a few ideas that maybe want to make more money or just dominate upon nature. What about planes, trains, automobiles, and modern medicine? Hasn't science served mankind by helping us develop those technologies?Yes and no. I see where you're going, and it's fair.I came here by plane, and it's a blessing. When I almost died, the surgeons did their job, and they saved my life. But these two forced choices between Luddites and Silicon Valley types, I think, of course, it's a false dichotomy.Progress, in a way, it's good, but we often don't speak about the dark side of the moon. We say the great things that progress has brought, and we don't speak about the disasters, the side effects that it has come with, and the same when we promise new technologies. We tend to think that any technology is great, that email is going to save us so much time because we don't need to write letters and send them anymore.Is that true? I spend so many hours a week writing emails. Let's just say there are great things about it and bad things about it. People like Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, for example, argue that we've made moral progress over time because of the Enlightenment. Do you think that's totally wrong-headed?I think he's emphasizing a side of the moon, and he does that very well, and you can find tons of plots where there's a slope going up and say it's great. But I think he should also tell the not-so-friendly story.But if your ideology is just to resist and continue to explain that the Enlightenment is the best thing ever and reason is the best thing ever… this feels to me like you're worshipping these abstractions.I'm very critical of it and also of these, again, science communicators and scientists that say, Oh, science says, in the name of science, experts say. It's like, come on, let's be careful because we can shoot ourselves in the foot by putting forth to the people an image of science that we know is not really true. Recently there's been a resurgence of spirituality and of people who say that they're spiritual but not religious, especially in the United States. If materialism is going away, what is going to fill that gap? Are we going to return to traditional religion? Do you see that being connected with the rise of the political right?I'm not a fortune teller, so I don't know what's going to happen. But, yeah, we could say we're in this post-materialist age and even post-secular age. One cannot come back to the past, but maybe just to contact with the roots is a good idea.What do I mean by that? I think we need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method. We need to do so in a culture where we realize humans cannot thrive in a vacuum where there's this idea that the sacred has to be removed.Now, how do we do that without bringing in back all the vices of religion? I don't know. I'm from a Catholic country.Here we are in England, so there are differences and interreligious dialogue has always been a challenge. But I think maybe a way of putting it is: after all these conflicts and branchings I was quickly alluding to, science from philosophy and then also from religion, now there's a time of reconciliation perhaps and maybe debates in the proper sense, like exchange of ideas in service of learning and getting into something higher than both poles. We need science to talk to religious people and it's interesting when people say they're spiritual and not religious.I think this is just a way of saying, no, I don't want to go back, I want to go forward. But at the end of the day, religions have offered us practices and grounding that we now desperately need. Everybody can and should just meditate or pray or do whatever they want, but we're in a crisis and it's time for reconciliation. What do you say to critics that say you are merely projecting our need for meaning onto a fundamentally indifferent universe?Yeah, I know that the typical science communicator says something like this. But we're not projecting. Human beings feed on meaning.It's the other way around. If you're a materialist, because the only thing that there is is matter, all that comes next, free will, consciousness, meaning, this is a kind of illusion that we need to explain.They're just craving for meaning, but there isn't really for them. I would also like to remind my materialist friends that for decades, if not centuries, they've said in the name of science, we know that this and this and this doesn't really exist. I think now they sense they're forced to say, well, actually, we don't know. We've been saying, for instance, that there's nothing after you die, and now probably they need to admit that they don't know the answer.___We need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method.___So it's a moment to open up possibilities and also to gently but fiercely critique these claims that I think harm society. If you say in the name of science, get on with it, when your father dies, you'll never see him again. Well, what the F do you know about it? You haven't studied the literature, you haven't had any of those experiences, and basically what you're doing is you're just doing marketing on ideology. This needs to stop. Do you think that it's scarier for some people to entertain the thought that there might be life after death, compared to a materialist worldview where you just die, given that there might be consequences for unsavory behaviour?Well, death and dying is scary. It's maybe the ultimate ending. It's a limit on life, and when we're in this conquest mode, we don't like limits.And it also has, there's a shockwave backwards, so I think if you change your notion of what death is or may be, you live differently. It also has consequences, as you're saying, for the future because this is not our only goal here and we come back in whatever form. And again, different religions would say different things. I the East, they are more happy with the idea of reincarnation, and here in the West, there are other preferences. But in any case, it changes how we live, and that's really what matters.It's not about just projecting or imagining what we'll be after, but how we live now and also how we treat those who are dying. So it goes from the individual to the families, to the hospitals.Now in the near-death research I do, this has ramifications at all these levels, all the way to society.But our society is thanatophobic. It has a phobia of death. We don't want to hear about death, and this is another thing we need to put on the table and be willing to talk about it. Do you think that we might get closer to answering ultimate questions like why is there anything at all if we jettison materialism?That’s an excellent question, Simon. Two things: we should stop treating reality, I believe, as a great sudoku, as an enigma, as something that with intelligence, money, and time that we will crack and instead treat reality more like a mystery. And what you do for in front of a mystery is not to be the clever guy in a class and say “I’ll solve you” but more like “I will bow and you will transform me.”I know this sounds a bit like a scientist speaking like a mystic. But I think this reorientation is needed. In the end, we won’t crack the big questions, but they will transform us. If we free ourselves from this prison of materialism, the way we will explore these questions will be freer, more creative, and in service of mankind. Do you think exploring mystery is the reason why we are here?I think we are here because, and this pseudo-theological argument I’m making off the cuff, But the One, the Absolute, if there is such a thing, had everything except limitation. We are that absolute experiencing that contingency. It’s like an act of divine proprioception. It’s a wonderful adventure, it’s just incredible to be alive. Perhaps we have forgotten why we are here and the whole point is to experience the flesh.Let me end by saying this. I criticize materialism harshly. I bang on this dead horse, because I think it’s dead. But matter is a great mystery. So maybe my invitation is as follows: hey materialist friends, come here, let’s work on materialism 2.0! Consciousness is a mystery, but matter is also a mystery. The fact that we can have an intersubjective experience consensus, the fact that we can apply mathematics, that we can measure things... the physical world we take for granted, but it is a great mystery too.Maybe that’s related to your last question: why are we here? Why did spirit decide to incarnate? Being in the flesh may be a great thing if spirit decided to do so.Àlex Gómez-Marín, thank you very much.My pleasure.
Opterion Health AG Announces Appointment of Andreas Schuh as Chief Financial Officer
MUTTENZ, Switzerland, Dec. 01, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Opterion Health AG, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company pioneering innovation in peritoneal dialysis (PD), is pleased to announce the appointment of Andreas Schuh as Chief Financial Officer (CFO), effective December 1, 2025. Andreas Schuh joins Opterion with over 20 years of leadership experience across biotech, pharma, and medical devices. He has held senior finance and operations roles at Nuclidium, Jeito, Roivant, Novartis, and Al
Full-length Replay: Big Ten Women's: Tennessee at UCLA
The No. 14 Lady Volunteers (5-1) head to Pauley Pavilion to challenge the No. 3 Bruins (7-1).